Following the results of the election, many have asked what the future of the Republican Party will be. Let’s explore the thoughts of TL.net.
Will there be a major realignment? What WILL happen, and what do you think SHOULD happen?
Before answering (to minimize stupid answers), observe these facts:
1. Neither major party is going to die or become irrelevant. They have been around a LONG time and have both been in worse shape that either is in now. Observe how the 3 elections of the 80’s (2 Reagan and 1 Bush Sr) all were significantly bigger landslides than Obama’s recent victory…and yet the Democratic Party is still alive—it just changed.
2. Political parties and politicians change to survive. That’s the way things work. Observe elections in the past where the only states the democrats won were the deep South. Parties do change.
I want us to explore the future of the Republican Party. I am not interested in hearing about how all republicans are brain damaged. Those posts reflect poorly on the intellect of the author and contribute nothing.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be blunt or even offensive—that’s fine. Just don’t say things that add nothing of substance.
So…lets hear it! TL decides the fate of the Party of Lincoln…..
EDIT: also feel free to mention who might lead the party in the future: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Schwarzzenneger, Sarah Palin, etc.
Many political specialists at the time where making statements that "the Reagan era had come to an end" and many considered the strong democratic showing a sign that the Republican Party needed to have a major realignment in order to survive and that a progressive era was starting. Most here at TL (on page 3 in my polls section) were of the opinion that the GOP needed to drop social issues and neocon foreign policy and focus purely on fiscal conservatism to survive.
So, now that a couple years have passed, a lot has changed. I won't bother to post polls or articles, because as anyone who has paid the slightest attention to political news knows, this is going to be a good election year for the GOP and a bad one for democrats. The only question is how bad will it be for democrats. Will it be bad enough that dems lose the House, for example?
So, now that a lot has changed we can ask: 1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment? 2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now? 3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP. 1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly? 2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
Make your predictions here and we'll see how we did 2 year from now.
So…lets hear it! TL decides the fate of the Party of Lincoln…..
"So my school just had a round table discussion on what the election means, with our professors who are experts in a number of different areas. One talked about this being a historic reframing election in that the Reagan Republican era is over, just as the New Deal Democrat era was over after Carter (Carter would've lost no matter what, essentially.) Clinton essentially ran and governed as a republican (he would've been a Rockefeller republican in the 60s) and made their ideas democrat ideas, which is part of what angered so many Rs. Now that this era is over, in order to survive the Republican party is going to have to restructure itself, essentially cutting off the current head of the party and abandoning the 3gs (God, guns and gays.) It's important to emphasize that politicans do what works, and this worked brilliantly for Reagan, but as we saw last night there's just no way to pick up enough electoral votes based on the deep south.
VT and IN provide examples for this. Even though they went for Obama, their republican governors were both re-elected. Mitch Daniels and Jim Douglas both ran on jobs and moderate issues, not social issues, so that's what we're going to start to see. Right now is a fantastic time to be a young republican, because they're going to gain power within the party, which they've essentially never had since Goldwater/Reagan. The Palin fans will still exist, but they're no longer the focus and it's doubtful we'll see her in 2012. What McCain really should've done was bring her out as his VP to energize the base, but a week later introduce his picks for cabinet members like Sec. of Treasury who would be centrists. The problem the party is going to face is that redistricting comes up in 2 years and with the Ds doing so well, they're going to position themselves very nicely for the next decade."
Parties have changed in the past the republican party of civil war time is more allied with the democrat party. They'll just make minor adjustments usually when partys become unpopular which i dont think the party has they just change to fit a bigger spectrum. They just need to be more moderate then the recent years have tried.
The Republicans are going to have to make some tough decisions, because they really are essentially three parties in one. There are the pro-business Republicans who just want lower taxes and less market regulation, there's the social conservatives who are focused on abortion, gay marriage, and then there's the neo-cons who are interested in heavy defense spending, a hawkish foreign policy, and imposing our ideals around the world. In Europe, there's no way that a person like Sarah Palin and a person like Dick Cheney would be in the same political party.
To some extent, these three groups can agree on certain things, like lower taxes. But then there's libertarian-leaning Republicans who are disgusted by the increase in government power under Bush, and of course the financial conservatives can't stand the huge increases in deficits caused by all these military misadventures. Not to mention that the pro-business policies of recent Administrations are very detrimental to the rank-and-file of the party. (This is all "what's the matter with Kansas" stuff that's been known for a while.)
Bush was able to get out the base because his conservative social views and personality were attractive to the social conservatives/religious right, and because his policies were strongly pro-business. The Republican party has been using social issues for a long time to motivate their base, without any real commitment or results in pushing these agendas. This makes sense, because it's fairly clear that long-term trends favor the liberal position on things like gay marriage. Does anyone think that the debate on gay marriage is not going to continue to shift towards acceptance and increased rights for gay couples?
Whereas it seems like most of the Democratic party, at least recently, can agree on a core set of principles (improved access to healthcare, improved environmental regulations, alternative energy policies, etc), the Republicans are a party that seems as if it's being pulled in all directions. I have no idea how this turns out, but I think that's the major issue that will have to be resolved.
Jibba mentioned that he thinks that they (we) will change away from the 3 G's. I don't think that is going to happen. As long as the courts are trying to decide things rather than the popular vote (abortion and gay marriage), people are gonna be angry and look for a party to voice their anger at being passed over.
I'll tell you what I think SHOULD happen. The GOP have always been reliable tax cutters. However, they have gotten a bad reputation recently because with those tax cuts, they don't cut spending. They increase spending just the same as Democrats. But the Democrats don't cut the revenues as much so the GOP is most responsible for recent additions to the national debt.
The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
Also, I see the neocon movement as primarily a foreign policy movement mirroring Bush's foreign policy. The foreign policy needs to change. We cannot afford to be thought of as the party of war.
i think that much of the Republican party's failings has to do with their being the party of "gut feelings". right wingers have almost been ashamed to appear looking "too smart".
i think the Republican party can't be afraid to show their brains.
Ultimately, i feel this country is a conservative thinking nation. if the republicans prove to be scrappy and resourceful during these lean years and serve as an intelligent counterpoint to the democratic gov, i think the country will swing towards in their favor.
but it's time to leave "gut feelers" like Bush and Palin behind. this is what particularly worries me about Palin's potential ascension in 2012.
On November 07 2008 04:07 d_so wrote: but it's time to leave behind "gut feelers" like Bush and Palin behind. this is what particularly worries me about Palin's potential ascension in 2012.
I'm a Republican and I plan on opposing her "political ascension" in 2012. I'd rather have an analyst like Mitt Romney.
I think she is a good person overall, but you probably have a point here.
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote: The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
This. Although I'm more conservative than liberal and typically support the Republican party (relative to the Democratic), it's my opinion that the Republican party is making terrible economic blunders by running up the national debt and spending like mad regardless of what money they actually have. Printing and/or borrowing more money needs to be greatly curtailed, especially given the current debt/economic issues.
The religion and big business associations aren't helping either, but I'm not sure they can be shed quickly.
I want to support the republican party because I am all for lowering taxes, spending less money, and having less government in general. But instead of representing these ideas, the republicans of today cater to the evangelicals and the hayseeds of America for votes. I just can't be assoicated with those types of people.
The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote: The GOP should become the party of fiscal responsibility. That worked for Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. I think people like that. They like knowing that one party is reticent to spend money.
I totally agree that this is the best thing for Republicans to lean on. Balancing the budget isn't a "sexy" centerpiece for a party platform, but I feel that it's something a lot of Americans, moderates and liberals included, could warm up to. Personally, this is a VERY important issue to me; even more important than universal health care at this point.
If the Republicans want to capture the center they need to focus their efforts here. As a liberal, of course, I think the budget savings should come from marginal increases on the top tax bracket, and a small increase on cap gains taxes, coupled with reduction in the defense budget and a general restraint on the growth in other areas. I'm not sure the Republicans OR Democrats could ever support a cut in the defense budget, but I think the Republicans have a better shot at being able to do it and surviving politically. Because the defense budget is larger than all other discretionary spending combined, any serious attempt at balancing the budget HAS to start here.
Remember these death knells were sounded when the Democrats lost the 2004 elections. Chances are, things won't seem as dire 3 or 4 years later as they do now. In any case, hopefully the idea that you can just appeal to the fundamentalist voters will die out, and we have some more reasonable candidates.
I really wish the Republicans would ditch the religious loonies and get back to the anti spending stuff. I have no problem voting for them on a local level, because overall, they tend to be better with curtailing rising budgets (but everyone just votes down the party lines like assholes anway. Dems stayed in power in the county, despite a 20 fucking million budget shortfall).
But I can't bring myself to vote for them in any capacity that will deal with civil rights. That stuff is huge for me, and most Republicans scare the shit out of me because they seem to think the bible is something everyone should live by.
Religion and politics don't mix, but over the last couple decades, the Red guys have done it. If the party gets away from the Huckabees and the Palins of the world and sticks with the more moderate, traditional guys, they will be a lot better off.
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote: The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
That is the old school Republican party. Nowadays they are the neocon christian right, whos political platform is one of fear and hate and it has corrupted the party in a bad way. It will be a while before we see anything good come out of that party.
If you truely believe that some of their old values wee individualism and equal opportunity they really need to drop their whole anti gay policy.
I also think that the worst aspect of the Republican party at this moment is the seeming dearth of intelligent and rational arguments. I meet very few conservatives who can actually argue major Republican points in a reasoned fashion (Savio, you are one considerable exception to this). It seems like Democrats have recently been the party of the "policy wonk", at least up until the 2008 campaign. No one can deny that Al Gore, for example, is immensely smart and knowledgeable on the issues. Obama also seems very smart, although he has so far avoided the minutiae of issues to this point. Hillary Clinton obviously knew policy points back and forth, and would often bore people to death during the campaign by dropping endless strings of facts and figures on people at rallies. I don't see anyone on the Republican side who is comparable to these people. McCain is clearly very good on foreign policy. But for domestic issues, it seems there's a lack of experts in high places.
And Republicans will never have my respect as long as large portions of the party are so willfully ignorant on black-and-white scientific issues (evolution, global warming, etc.). I feel that the party would do well to cede ground on these fronts.
On November 07 2008 06:00 Hawk wrote: I really wish the Republicans would ditch the religious loonies and get back to the anti spending stuff. I have no problem voting for them on a local level, because overall, they tend to be better with curtailing rising budgets (but everyone just votes down the party lines like assholes anway. Dems stayed in power in the county, despite a 20 fucking million budget shortfall).
But I can't bring myself to vote for them in any capacity that will deal with civil rights. That stuff is huge for me, and most Republicans scare the shit out of me because they seem to think the bible is something everyone should live by.
Religion and politics don't mix, but over the last couple decades, the Red guys have done it. If the party gets away from the Huckabees and the Palins of the world and sticks with the more moderate, traditional guys, they will be a lot better off.
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote: The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
That is the old school Republican party. Nowadays they are the neocon christian right, whos political platform is one of fear and hate and it has corrupted the party in a bad way. It will be a while before we see anything good come out of that party
Yeah, the old school guys weren't bad at all. Even if they did eliminate the neo-cons, they are still, overall, a little too hawkish for my taste, but I'd at least consider it. Because right now, I basically scoff at the notion of someone who has the backing of that party running the country. I really think that pre 08 election McCain wasn't that bad at all. It was his pandering to the religious people that killed him with the independents. I still think he would have picked up the religious people if he stuck to his guns, cuz where else where they going to go? Certainly not blue.
I just wanna echo the comments above, that I don't hate all Republican supporters here, provided you can give arguements to why. Aka, headbangaa, savio. (hell, I hate my own who voted for no other reason than HES BLACK, etc).
And I certainly don't 100% support democrat. I fancy myself as an indepentent thinker. Dems got it more right, but I think that the government should be there to help you, but not totally prop you up.
On November 07 2008 04:03 Savio wrote: Jibba mentioned that he thinks that they (we) will change away from the 3 G's. I don't think that is going to happen. As long as the courts are trying to decide things rather than the popular vote (abortion and gay marriage), people are gonna be angry and look for a party to voice their anger at being passed over.
People will be angry, but not enough people to win.
They alienate most moderates when they use these issues.
One thing that should happen is that the young vote is always important and you can't keep using Reagan as an example, that was 28 years ago, not two years ago which they try to portray. And Bush's economic meltdown in his 2nd term sure didn't help who was labeled as a modern Republican.
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote: The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is completely wrong. Legitimate polling has found that greater % of people identify themselves with the Democratic party and most of those things you mentioned are things that all people embrace.
Aside from that, this country was not founding purely on any of those things. I don't want to start a Madisonian discussion, but there are very few issues on which you can claim a consensus principle of what this country was formed upon, especially the role of the federal government. Just because Jefferson (who hated faith) wanted a yeoman society doesn't mean the country was founded on that principle.
They need to readjust towards legitimate policies and stop instigating the evangelical right with social policies. So far when they've preached classical capitalism, all they've done is used it to shoot down leftist approaches rather than put forth a hopeful alternative. This has been the failure of the party.
Reagan was the first to start winning in the new era that Goldwater created, but there is extremely strong evidence that we've seen the end of it, dispute what you think about the election being "close." GOP whip is stepping down, minority leaders are stepping down and all the young <45 Republicans are admitting these problems. Jindal is probably going to be the next big hope.
I'm fearful that as the Democrat party veers further to the left, we'll see the Republican party move left-of-center in order to become the "reasonable" and "more centrist" party. Will that birth a new, more conservative party? It's difficult to say, but with the split attention between Romney and Huckabee in the primaries and the Republicans ending up with McCain (an option nobody was happy about), it's clear that something drastic will have to be done to avoid more McCain-type candidates in the future. I think that's the one thing all Republicans can agree on. Not that I can speak as being a Republican.
On November 07 2008 06:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm fearful that as the Democrat party veers further to the left, we'll see the Republican party move left-of-center in order to become the "reasonable" and "more centrist" party. Will that birth a new, more conservative party? It's difficult to say, but with the split attention between Romney and Huckabee in the primaries and the Republicans ending up with McCain (an option nobody was happy about), it's clear that something drastic will have to be done to avoid more McCain-type candidates in the future. I think that's the one thing all Republicans can agree on. Not that I can speak as being a Republican.
Pelosi is certainly trying to steer the party to the left, but I expect Obama will keep a fairly centrist staff. No doubt that the entire country will be further to the left in 10 years than it is right now.
A younger, 2000 McCain is exactly what they need to run with. I think the only legitimate candidates left in the Senate is Snow, but there's a handful of great young governors and congress people. I can see her being a very strong candidate in 2012, and she'd trounce Palin.
Yeah, I think he's gonna surround himself with people of differing opinions to keep some balance.
Who says that quote about real intelligence is being able to hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time? I'm definitely more left, but having that as the only party is non bueno meng.
Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
After the democratic congress and president probably rack up another 5 trillion dollars of debt over the next 4 years, it won't be very difficult for the republicans to emerge dominant as the party of fiscal responsibility. When Obama couldn't name a single program he'd cut in the debates, but is more than happy to list over a trillion dollars in new spending, we'd better hope he was either lying, exaggerating, or realizes his shortsightedness.
If Obama takes a more centrist approach, and manages to make congress look like the one not getting anything done, he could win again in 2012, but it'll be with a 50/50 mixed senate and house. I don't think the republicans need to do anything really, just distance themselves from Bush (heavy spender) and let the Democrats decide their own fate. With a 16% approval rating, I really don't think they're gonna miraculously become a great congress. The natural 4-8 year party swings tend to sort everything out by themselves.
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
On November 07 2008 06:16 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm fearful that as the Democrat party veers further to the left, we'll see the Republican party move left-of-center in order to become the "reasonable" and "more centrist" party. Will that birth a new, more conservative party? It's difficult to say, but with the split attention between Romney and Huckabee in the primaries and the Republicans ending up with McCain (an option nobody was happy about), it's clear that something drastic will have to be done to avoid more McCain-type candidates in the future. I think that's the one thing all Republicans can agree on. Not that I can speak as being a Republican.
I don't think I really accept your premise. On social issues, like gay rights and civil rights, the whole country has moved slowly to the left over decades, but I see that as a natural (and positive) evolution of people's beliefs. For example, the country has moved gradually "to the left" on civil and women's rights, but I don't think anyone believes that there was anything wrong with that shift. In the 1910's, liberals were the first people to fight for women's rights, and the country slowly came along. Ditto for civil rights in the 1960's. And now gay rights are the current big civil rights fight, with liberals leading the way.
I guess my point is: I don't think that the Democratic party is swinging left on any issue where the whole American populace isn't also swinging left. Sure, universal health care is a position which is considered "left" but it's also something that the country is much more ready for now, than it was 15 years ago. Whether you consider this a result of the whole country moving "left" or not, it's hard to say that it's not quickly becoming a de facto centrist position.
Additionally, on economic matters, I believe the Republican party and the country have shifted notably to the right over the past 50 years. More free trade, much less regulation, much less power for unions, a less progressive tax system, more corporate power in DC, all these things are clearly a shift to the right.
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
can someone show me the actual data
I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here:
Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left.
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
can someone show me the actual data
I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here:
Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left.
Um, hate to bring out your bias, but that study was done by a non-partisan group.
Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
It's just hilarious that every four years the National Journal goes ahead and ranks the Democratic candidate as the most liberal senator. And then we get to hear that false talking point repeated over and over again for the better part of a year.
edit: Here is a much more comprehensive analysis of voting record than that incomplete NJ study.
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
can someone show me the actual data
I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here:
Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left.
Um, hate to bring out your bias, but that study was done by a non-partisan group.
Care to name the group? Because the study I keep seeing quoted is the National Journal one.
I'd be interested to see your opinions of the two methodologies (National Journal, or whatever study you're talking about, and UCSD) and to tell me which you feel is less "biased" and why.
(Or you can keep posting one-liners devoid of facts.)
Republicans have to be EXTREMELY careful not to jump into this climate as controversial/resistant. If they are seen to be holding back the government in these first two years, democrats will pick up more seats in Senate and House and carry a clear majority.
Republicans should NOT focus on 3 ideas: 1) Fiscal responsibility - I'm talking about cutting spending. If you focus on cutting spending, you're focusing on KILLING your voter base. There is no way you can continue a campaign of stagnation. Fiscal responsibility should be a non-partisan issue as a whole, everyone should be responsible with how they spend tax payer money.
2) Bigotry - White supremacy is over. Get on with it. I've seen emails lately of "blacks and gays... wow!! We're gonna push that wedge issue so hard hahha." If you try this, your party will become synonymous with regional south racism. Good luck EVER getting any independent/democratic support ever again.
3) Religion - If you continue to attempt to define yourself as a Christian, white, man that preaches to people about what they should believe and how God guides their decisions. Guess what? There are hundreds of millions of people that believe what you believe in, but most of them don't believe you should be forcing those beliefs on anyone else. They also don't believe you should govern through religion. Separation of church and state. Do it.
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
can someone show me the actual data
I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here:
Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left.
dud thx this is fukin awesome
yeah i remember against clinton everyone said they voted nealry the same but suddenly he became most liberal senator i was like wtf?????
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
can someone show me the actual data
I actually brought this up in another thread. Compared to the rest of the Demoratic party, Obama is just a bit left of the center, based on his voting record. His voting record puts him something like in the teens of "most liberal Senators" for the past 4 years. There's a fascinating analysis of this here:
Take a look at that page and some of the linked pages. They really display the data in some cool ways, and their methodology is much more sound than those right-wing groups who produced "studies" showing that Obama/Kerry are so far left.
Um, hate to bring out your bias, but that study was done by a non-partisan group.
Care to name the group? Because the study I keep seeing quoted is the National Journal one.
I'd be interested to see your opinions of the two methodologies (National Journal, or whatever study you're talking about, and UCSD) and to tell me which you feel is less "biased" and why.
(Or you can keep posting one-liners devoid of facts.)
NJ is a non-partisan group. If you care to provide evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. You don't see me saying "OMFG THE UCSD STUDY IS LIBTARD-MADE STUDY" then not posting anything backing that up. In fact, I didn't refute your study at all, I merely corrected your mis-statement that NJ is a Republican group. Just because you're biased doesn't mean everyone else is.
EDIT: Just pm me the link to evidence NJ is a Republican entity. I'm getting out of these silly political threads (where the moderates are written off as republicans during the usual internet discussion board liberal circle jerk).
On November 07 2008 06:24 KOFgokuon wrote: Though obama had a very liberal voting record in the senate, I'm really hopeful that he doens't try to jam an absurdly liberal agenda through congress and have a massive backfire like what occurred in 1993-1994.
Yes. Obama ran as a moderate, but his past is anything but moderate. If the country does lurch to the Left too fast, I am expecting a backlash.
Also, I think the GOP is better at being the underdog party than the ruling party. I think we are going to see a much better GOP over the next 4 years and who knows what will happen.
what exactly could obama have voted on in 2 years that show this extreme leftism?
For his 3 complete years in the Senate, he has been ranked as one of the most liberal senators all 3 years coming in #1 in 2007. See the methodology to understand how that was decided.
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology.
It's not important whether or not the National Journal exercised any bias in their analysis. What's important is that their analysis is very flawed when looked at from a scientific perspective.
That NJ study is one of those things that was discredited a long time ago, but somehow maintained relevance simply by constantly being repeated by politicians and the media. I remember back to when I was doing research while in university. I bet I could have disproved gravity if I was only allowed to cherry pick the results that fit my expectations while conveniently ignoring everything else ;-)
We have heard to different ideas about where the GOP should go.
1. They need to be "more conservative" at least in financial matters, in that they should stand for spending restraint and balanced budgets. They should focus on keeping the government small.
2. They need to be "less conservative" in that opposing spending and programs will alienate voters. They need to embrace things that are good but increase government such as univeral health care, and other programs.
In looking at domestic economic issues,
Poll: Should Republicans become less or more conservative economically? (Vote): More conservative--keep government small (Vote): Less conservative--embrace new sensible spending programs (Vote):
Edit: Sorry bout the third option, just ignore it.
2 other polls:
Poll: Should Republicans emphasize social issues more or less? (Vote): More (Vote): Less (Vote): Same
and
Poll: Should Republicans abandon neocon foreign policy? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Undecided
These poll results are very interesting. It seems like there is fairly strong support for fiscal conservatism, very little support for conservative social ideals, and no support (not even from me!) on neoconservatism.
Also, I wanted to quote this so that people who haven't voted can see it and vote.
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology.
They changed their methodology from the one used for Kerry to the one used for Obama. Had similar methodologies been used, Obama would not have been ranked as most liberal.
What we have here is a study that holds far less merit than similar studies but managed to gain traction because the result it produced created a useful talking point for one of the candidates. As a guy with a background in scientific research (I'm sure there are plenty of us around here), I find the whole thing pretty astounding. More comprehensive analysis is ignored and instead we get this 'Mc.Study' thrown at us because of the convenient result. It's insulting =/
I'm certainly not trying to imply that they intentially skewed the result. But there was an element of human intervention when they cherry-picked certain votes to be used in the analysis. When I say they 'fudged their methods', I was being to too vague - referring to the methods they used to rank Kerry as the most liberal. Methods they admitted to being flawed.
This link I posted above does a good job of summing up the problems with a study like this.
On November 07 2008 06:56 Flaccid wrote: Hmmm. Even the National Journal, the dudes who rated Obama as the most liberal senator in 2007, admitted to fudging their ranking methods. The accepted rankings have him ~10, as clutch said. The NJ study simply cherry-picked a small number of votes in order to reach a desired conclusion.
I have never heard that. In fact they are very clear and transparent about the entire process which is automated by the way. Read the methodology.
The picking of which votes are included is NOT automated, unless I am reading their methodology incorrectly.
And, as with Margarita, I'd be interested to hear why you feel the NJ methodology is superior to Rosenthal's. As far as I can tell, Rosenthal's methodology has the following major advantages: 1. Results make much more sense in terms of common sense/intuition (most people know that Feingold/Sanders/Wellstone were all among the most liberal members... Rosenthal's analysis confirms this, while NJ does not). 2. Rosenthal's method based on a much larger and broader data set. 3. Rosenthal's method has much less potential for human error. 4. Rosenthal's method has much wider acceptance among the professional community.
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
If they want to reignite their party they will need to be more conservative in terms of keeping government small and more liberal in terms of social issues like gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
I find this part to be the most suspect. If they really only voted differently on 2 issues, how could they possibly be that far apart?
By Norman J. Ornstein Posted: Wednesday, April 9, 2008
From the beginning of the presidential campaign through last week, there had been 163 references in Nexis to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) being the most liberal Member of the Senate, with all of the news outlets relying on National Journal's 2007 vote ratings (which, incidentally, placed New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at No. 16).
To anyone who has spent more than a nanosecond around the Senate and has seen, met or watched Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) or Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), among others, this rating is pretty ridiculous--as was the equally ballyhooed National Journal ranking of John Kerry (D-Mass.) as the most liberal Senator in 2004. All of this raises interesting questions about what it means to be liberal or conservative, and what these vote ratings, done by top-flight publications like National Journal and Congressional Quarterly, and by many interest groups, actually mean.
There is only one reason that Kerry and Obama made the dubious distinction of most liberal. It is because they missed a lot of votes while campaigning for president.
There has been some interesting and insightful writing by top political scientists about the National Journal claims regarding Kerry and Obama, most recently by the outstanding Congressional scholar Sarah Binder. (There was also a definitive analysis in 2004 by three political scientists from Princeton and Stanford universities.) There have also been good blog entries on the Obama rating by Michael Sherer and Steve Benen.
The first point to make is that National Journal's ratings are an improvement over the previous static and unidimensional ones done by others, because they encompass three major policy areas: economics, foreign policy and social issues. But they have a huge basic flaw or gap--they are shaped dramatically by attendance and absences. There is only one reason that Kerry and Obama made the dubious distinction of most liberal (dubious because whether they are liberal or not, "most liberal" sounds extreme). It is because they missed a lot of votes while campaigning for president.
In his blog, Benen observed, "National Journal's press release on the rankings noted the criteria were based on 99 key roll call votes last year: 'Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes.' So, Clinton voted for the liberal position 77 times, Obama voted for it 65 times, which makes Obama the chamber's single most liberal member. Got it."
To be sure, both Obama and Kerry would fit within the liberal camp; both would be in the top 20 in the Senate. But these rankings can't really get any more precise than that. That is the second problem with vote ratings of this sort. As the political scientists Joshua Clinton, Simon Jackman and Doug Rivers pointed out in a political science journal, the ratings ignore ranges that reflect the gross imperfections of roll-call votes on the floor--many relying on shaky judgment calls to define "liberal" or "conservative"--that statisticians call "confidence intervals." National Journal, like every other ratings operation, opts for false precision to have greater effect.
Sherer, in his blog for Time magazine, notes: "I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the rankings. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the more liberal position and Clinton took the conservative."
Sherer goes on to say that the first was an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) to establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity; Obama voted yes (along with Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain), while Clinton voted no. The second was an amendment Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) offered to the immigration bill on the renewal of non-immigrant visas; Obama voted yes, along with GOP Sens. Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Tom Coburn (Okla.), while Clinton voted no. Sherer says, "So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain . . . and Tom Coburn."
As Binder notes, the best ideological rankings are actually done by scholars Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, relying on all votes and a very complex method widely adopted by scholars. The Poole-Rosenthal scores make Obama the 10th most liberal Senator in 2007--and, by the way, make McCain the seventh most conservative.
One larger point to make here. The flaws and limitations in the rankings have been systematically ignored by journalists writing or broadcasting on this issue--either because it gets too complicated or because the reality would spoil a good story, or in many cases, because reporters pick up the reference from one story and just repeat it in the next, and on and on. As a consequence, the assertions are exploited by political forces for their own purposes.
I don't expect journalists to be statistical whizzes. But because these rankings have been flagged and analyzed repeatedly by reputable scholars and observers, I do expect some restraint in repeating the exaggerations. The problem is not simply National Journal's--it is indeed, as most press accounts say, one of the best and most respected publications around. It is more the larger headache of journalistic sloth.
As I pointed out a second ago in a PM to Margarita, the NJ rankings also seem to have two clear flaws. First of all, Obama and Clinton are ranked 15 spots apart in 2007. Yet, their voting records only differ on two votes, and these two votes really can't be said to mean almost anything about how "liberal" they are. Second of all, the way that the NJ handles absences is not satisfactory; I won't go into this in detail, but you can google and read why from someone who is a lot smarter than I am. This, by the way, is why John McCain is not ranked AT ALL; he missed too many votes (not exactly a resounding endorsement).
I find this part to be the most suspect. If they really only voted differently on 2 issues, how could they possibly be that far apart?
It's the retarded method they use. The results are completely dependant on what votes you show up for - there is no level playing field. Say senator one shows up for 10 votes. 5 of those the liberal position is obviously favorable and he votes liberal. The other 5, the conservative position is obviously favorable and he votes conservative. He gets a 50% liberal rating. Now imagine the same senator only showed up for 5 of those votes. And imagine the only 5 votes he showed up for were the votes with an obviously favorable liberal position. Congrats - he just became the 'most liberal senator' with a 100% liberal voting record.
I don't think the republican party needs to change it's platform. The democratic party was in a similar position in '04. They had no solidified face, no obvious leaders holding the party together, no real argument for power other than that they were not Bush. Obama's campaign really gave the democratic party a solidified front, and they came bounced back from not having the presidency or congress, and now they hold the house, congress, and the presidency. The republican party's main problem is that they appealed to there base to much. Clinton was successful by moving to the right and bringing in the "middle". In '00 Rove new the middle had significantly shrunk, and decided appealing to the base would be more successful. That was a genius, but short sighted strategy. The RNC set themselves up in a position where they needed the base to win, but in the process of building there base they excluded a lot of voters, so when the christian right just wasn't enough, they had a hard time changing face. I think that is an issue of message delivery as well as the message. Now they are in a similar position the democrats were in in '04. They've lost there power positions, they have no obvious leader holding the party together, and there message doesn't seem to be pulling enough people in. I personally think there message is not pulling enough people in because of there delivery. They have been very decisive and negative. I don't think I have been ever as appalled at American politics as when I saw videos of Palin supporters yelling out things like terrorist about Obama. You can say that these people are just stupid, but the problem is that those ideas were planted in there heads by the RNC, and most people were able to see through the B.S. If the RNC wants to maintain that kind of message delivery, they will never regain solidarity or power. They can maintain a similar platform, change there message delivery, and establish obvious leaders within there party, and than they will be back in debating form.
Maybee this post doesn't belong in this thread, but more stories are being leaked about Palin's stupidity and the intercampaign problems. I think she may be used as a scapegoat for loosing this election to some extent by certain groups of Reps
Flaccid, Rosenthal's analysis is very interesting. I don't have the expertise or the time really to do be able to definitively say which one is better.
But I will say that Rosenthal's analysis makes me feel hopeful. I hope he is right. Cause Obama is gonna be our President anyway. And we need SOMEONE to keep Nancy Pelosi under control.
If Obama does govern like a moderate democrat like Bill Clinton did, and if he consults seriously with Republicans and tries to include them in governing, I won't have anything to complain about.
If he does that, he will be a 2 term president for sure. But he is gonna have some serious pressure from the liberal interest groups to pass some dang liberal policies.
One I am the most afraid of is the push by big unions to remove the anonymity and privacy from votes to unionize. As it is right now, workers vote and it is anonymous. You can't tell how any single person voted. But they want to make it so everyone can access exactly how you voted. This gives more power to unions because then they can pressure people specifically and individually to change their vote. That is just wrong. If Obama signs that into law, then he will have lost all the potential respect I might gain for him.
EDIT: Laws like that are what lead to the other party making a comeback.
i hope some new evangelical leaders step up and continue to be an unrelenting millstone around the party's neck. then republicans who life for raging against the political establishment can rage without causing harm, and people can get on with normal business.
Savio, I think if you stop caring about gay marriage and civil union, you're going to be pleasantly surprised by Obama in 4 years. He is not even close to Pelosi on the liberal spectrum.
I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead. They need to drop social issues and promote their conservative spending approach (and make it credible) rather than trying to belittle democratic socialism. The foreign policy thing is iffy. If they drop the Christian right angle, we won't have to worry about idiots in charge believing in rapture, but neo-realism still makes a lot of sense to people and I don't think it will change that quickly. Obama has said he will use political capital on places like Darfur and Somalia (which I just did a research project on today and is seriously the most fucked up country in the world; it is the next Afghanista, mark my words) but it remains to be seen if he will. Clinton was terrible in that regard.
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead.
Every Republican president since Reagan has run a massive deficit. Bush has increased government spending and powers an incredible amount. The Republican party's actions are diametrically opposed with their proclaimed platform - how could I ever vote for a party composed of lying hypocrites? Your party has been moving further and further right, courting the delusional Christian fundamentalists and xenophobes at the cost of alienating everybody else.
What I'm curious about is what the current make-up of the Republican party is. Are there enough of the "moderates" remaining to reclaim the party and kick out the crazies, or will they have to splinter off and form their own group? It's important to remember that the Democratic party as it is now is primarily a coalition formed to oppose the Republican party - my hope is that the Republican party will be sufficiently weakened/fractured so that the Democratic party will also be able to splinter, which would hopefully lead to the end of the two-party system.
The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future.
problem is, there is no consistent minarchist governing position that also manages to be a workable policy platform in the specific. so when you get minarchists in power, so called anyway, they cut stuff that they do not like and buff up things thought to conform to their idea of value. hence the moniker of minarchism is a shell game for an alternative distributive platform, as it currently stands.
a consistent minarchism still reeks too much ideological fear of government to be responsive to real issues in society. a government run by the guy from mises or something would be a circus.
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: I think the Republican party HAS to stick with small government, conservative spending or else the party will basically be dead.
Every Republican president since Reagan has run a massive deficit. Bush has increased government spending and powers an incredible amount. The Republican party's actions are diametrically opposed with their proclaimed platform - how could I ever vote for a party composed of lying hypocrites? Your party has been moving further and further right, courting the delusional Christian fundamentalists and xenophobes at the cost of alienating everybody else.
What I'm curious about is what the current make-up of the Republican party is. Are there enough of the "moderates" remaining to reclaim the party and kick out the crazies, or will they have to splinter off and form their own group? It's important to remember that the Democratic party as it is now is primarily a coalition formed to oppose the Republican party - my hope is that the Republican party will be sufficiently weakened/fractured so that the Democratic party will also be able to splinter, which would hopefully lead to the end of the two-party system.
I'm glad you think it's my party affiliation just because I'm knowledgeable. I could be a Marxist too then. Chairman Mao loves us enough to make the sun rise!
The party isn't splitting because it won't win. Stop thinking in terms of ideals, this is a pragmatic issue. If they believed they could keep winning on the 3Gs, then they would. They don't believe that, so they're looking for a new strategy to win. Splitting up because of the crazies doesn't accomplish that. They just won't appeal to them anymore.
The Bush/Reagan thing is part of building credibility. There are true fiscal conservatives who shy away from massive military budgets, but we haven't seen them recently. Every candidate since Reagan has run on the "cut spending" agenda while spending has gone up, so they have to make a plea that the next candidate truly does mean to fix the deficit. Hence we'll probably see a young, new governor as the next candidate.
I have to say Bobby J. is going to be a strong candidate. He's very articulate and made me vote for him twice (first time he lost) for governor of Louisiana. He does have some concerns. Namely, politics down here is more corrupt than Chicago. He's VERY conservative, but a polished speaker and a man of action. He's quite like Barack on the opposite end of the spectrum. One concern is that he's from LA --> No extra electoral votes. He also won't have a pull on the surrounding states, since they are already red too. He's going to need to pick his battles very carefully if he wants to make it out of the fire with Romney and Palin next go around.
On November 07 2008 20:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future.
Recent history, though is just 2 Bush's. Reagan cut domestic spending. Increased military spending but we were in the cold war.
I think they can cut spending again with no Bush in power.
You can't discount Reagan's military spending just because we were in the Cold War. We were in it for a lot longer than that and there's little justification for much of the spending, especially since they didn't even use the military when we were attacked (Beirut.)
This country's progressive policies are producing too many urban gangsters, welfare queens, and die-hard warriors for the affirmative action establishment. Republicans have to start resolutely opposing these things.
You're either trolling so hardcore its dangerous or you're a racist so deep down I pity you. Not sure what to think about that response.
A) Urban Gangsters - Progressive policies are causing crime. Please show me any correlation here.
B) Welfare Queens - Again, please show me. Welfare programs are necessary unless you want to condemn the poor in your country to die. Show me the moral equivalence test here.
C) Die-hard Warriors - What does this even?
All I hear from your post is "White supremacy forever." The calling card of the republican party is dying, if you think the GOP is going to keep fighting race wars as the electoral balance shifts away, you're out of your mind. Fighting to secure the top 10% whites place in America and the bottom 30% white place in America with the same message is going to become increasingly difficult as the top 10% gets further and further from middle class.
Amazing. My post has no references to race, and I STILL get called a racist and a white supremacist. What will people like you say when REAL racists show up? You will have wasted all of your rhetorical ammunition on phony racism charges against conservatives who are against discrimination on the basis of race that goes by the name of affirmative action. Your points can be addressed, but I don't reply to insulting comments.
Are you trying to imply that you WEREN'T talking about race? Because your reply says you were.
"who are against discrimination on the basis of race"
So please, tell me how you aren't being racist. If you're against discrimination on the basis of race, why don't you support equivalence of races? If you think you don't get opportunities because you are white that someone from another race wouldn't get, you're lying to yourself.
It *IS* racist to say: "I don't think the government should help anyone. Whoever makes it to the top, makes it to the top." Not everyone has the same opportunities as you do.
Yeah, I'm white. I have a good education and an easy life. Know how much work I had to do for it? Nothing. I don't even try in school. I get a free ride. My mom takes off work whenever she wants, and we go on vacations every year. My dad works his ass off, but you know what? He made a mistake in college choosing the profession he got into.
On November 08 2008 01:24 Jibba wrote: You can't discount Reagan's military spending just because we were in the Cold War. We were in it for a lot longer than that and there's little justification for much of the spending, especially since they didn't even use the military when we were attacked (Beirut.)
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: Savio, I think if you stop caring about gay marriage and civil union, you're going to be pleasantly surprised by Obama in 4 years. He is not even close to Pelosi on the liberal spectrum.
Things Obama could do that would impress me:
1. Veto or kill the bill to remove voter anonymity in unionizing 2. DON"T reverse the ban on partial birth abortions. The vast majority of Americans support this ban and only people like Nancy Pelosi would try to overturn it. 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty. 4. Despite his campaign promises, pull out of Iraq in such a way that it remains stable. Don't make the process rigid and inflexible. Go ahead and pull out, but adjust to circumstances on the ground enough that stability is maintained.
I don't think that any of these things are unreasonable. He doesn't have to be conservative to impress me. But these issues here are important and only a far left individual would not heed these suggestions.
Oh, there's one more thing. Republicans HAVE TO, HAVE TO, HAVE TO, learn how to appeal to Hispanic voters. I don't think black voters will be coming over any time soon, but the Hispanic vote can definitely be challenged. Bush tried this...McCain tried it too, but the rest of the GOP was yelling so hard against illegal immigrants that Hispanics took this as an attack on them.
Hispanics are the fastest increasing demographic, and the Republican Party NEEDS some minorities in their column.
On November 08 2008 03:36 Savio wrote: 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty.
Curious about NAFTA, from up here in Canadiana.
With His Eminence, Barack Obama (or B-Rock as I call him - we're tight) becoming the President Elect of the USA, Canadians are doing their part to freak out over his remarks regarding NAFTA - specifically that it's not working how it should. Now, I'm not here to claim that it is working properly, but rather to ask "why?" Why freak out? NAFTA kind of sucks from a Canadian perspective.
People don't seem to remember how heated of a debate existed in this country just mere decades ago when NAFTA was on the table. At the very least I'm sure some of us might remember seeing, at some point, those infamous clips from the Mulrooney-Turner debates. Point is, Canadians were very divided. But now that the deal is signed and out of the public-scope, we've all gone back to eating bacon and watching the Leafs lose.
This is telling:
A Canadian poll conducted in June 2003 by Ipsod Reid found that 70 percent of Canadians supported NAFTA, while only 26 percent were opposed. However, a May 2004 Ipsos poll found that "Six in ten Canadians (62 percent) disagree that Canada should sign a trade agreement that would open Canada's public services to competition from foreign companies" and "A further six in ten (60 percent) disagree that government should sign deals that would allow corporations to directly sue the Government of Canada if our public policies impair their ability to make profits".
Which, if anything tells me that we're all doing the Canadian thing right now. We don't know what to think, but we hear things in the news that are scary so we accept the status quo. We're just lucky that doing so doesn't require actually knowing what the status quo actually is.
From my point of view, I always thought that the real beneficiary from NAFTA was Mexico, but I've only ever looked at it from a Canadian perspective.
So I'm curious, why do you feel that NAFTA is the *right* solution to free trade, and what, if anything would you change about it.
From my perspective, the effectiveness of NAFTA was demonstrated quite vividly with the softwood lumber dispute. America imposed a 27% tariff on Canadian softwood (your mom didn't impose any tariffs on my hardwood - couldn't resist), and Canada was all "hey, u cnt do that!" America was like "fux dat, we do wat we want," all the while snapping fingers in front of its face and bobbing its head from side to side. And with America's dependance on Canadian oil, any future negotiations should find us holding a pretty good hand.
edit: I'd like to say, in case there is any confusion, that I agree with the principles of free trade. But perhaps NAFTA isn't the best solution.
edit2: And regarding your other points, I don't have much to say besides that I agree for the most part. Particularly with unions. At the risk of branching off into a mouth-breathing-tirade against modern unions, I'll put on the brakes and save it for another post =]
I am very interested to see that every election, more states are banning affirmative action. And they aren't red states solely: Michigan, California, Colorado and several others.
This in my opinion is a huge step forward. Michigan has a large black population, and yet, I have not heard a huge outcry against the ban. This may mean that many minorities are not feeling the need for affirmative action, which could mean that they are not feeling as marginalized as they have been in the past.
If this is true, then I am very happy for my country. I support ending affirmative action because I don't think it is needed anymore. And I am very happy to see both red and blue states, both states that have a lot of minorities and those without, choosing to end it without stirring a controversy. This looks very positive in my opinion.
In general, I think things would be better off without affirmative action. If AA did make sense, it would make more sense in education than in the labor force (though it seems it's largely disappeared most places outside of education). I wouldn't argue with the high-level theory of it, but its disadvantages outweigh any benefits. There are numerous disadvantages, but the biggest is that doesn't have enough actual beneficial effect to outweigh all the hatred and controversy it inspires in people on all sides of the debate (I feel the exact same way about hate crimes legislation... why bother?). Honestly, I think affirmative action has a small effect on the overall population at any given university.
I agree that affirmative action based on income levels (for education at least) makes a lot more sense than race-based AA. I still don't know if there's any way to implement that so it results in a net gain for society.
On November 07 2008 11:58 Jibba wrote: Savio, I think if you stop caring about gay marriage and civil union, you're going to be pleasantly surprised by Obama in 4 years. He is not even close to Pelosi on the liberal spectrum.
Things Obama could do that would impress me:
1. Veto or kill the bill to remove voter anonymity in unionizing 2. DON"T reverse the ban on partial birth abortions. The vast majority of Americans support this ban and only people like Nancy Pelosi would try to overturn it. 3. Don't mess with NAFTA. That was instituted by a democratic President so its not like it is a conservative treaty. 4. Despite his campaign promises, pull out of Iraq in such a way that it remains stable. Don't make the process rigid and inflexible. Go ahead and pull out, but adjust to circumstances on the ground enough that stability is maintained.
I don't think that any of these things are unreasonable. He doesn't have to be conservative to impress me. But these issues here are important and only a far left individual would not heed these suggestions.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with the card thing, but two of those seem fairly likely. The Iraq thing is rough. He hasn't said he'll bring troops home, he just said he's shifting them to Afghanistan which may or may not be a good idea. Afghanistan is essentially a failed state, and yes the Taliban are terrible, but I don't think there's a realistic shot that we'll be able to secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. I suppose part of the thought is that if Pakistan fully collapses, India will rush in and secure the country but I really don't know.
The hispanic thing is huge. Do you realize how much better this country would be off today if we had had real immigration reform, instead of the asshole minute men and the fucking ridiculous wall? Our economy would likely be stronger if they were allowed to legally work.
The safety threat is bogus, the last terrorists who attacked us were trained within the fucking US, not in Canada or Mexico.
On November 08 2008 03:50 Savio wrote: Regarding race and affirmative action:
I am very interested to see that every election, more states are banning affirmative action. And they aren't red states solely: Michigan, California, Colorado and several others.
This in my opinion is a huge step forward. Michigan has a large black population, and yet, I have not heard a huge outcry against the ban. This may mean that many minorities are not feeling the need for affirmative action, which could mean that they are not feeling as marginalized as they have been in the past.
If this is true, then I am very happy for my country. I support ending affirmative action because I don't think it is needed anymore. And I am very happy to see both red and blue states, both states that have a lot of minorities and those without, choosing to end it without stirring a controversy. This looks very positive in my opinion.
What you all think about affirmative action?
Michigan has 10% unemployment, even if AA were around it likely wouldn't make a difference. Have you listened to Obama's race speech? I know he's against race based AA.
aa would not work without a civic culture that understands its intended effect. and people are hostile to class based aa to an unreasonable degree. given an ideal political culture, we would have class based aa.
On November 07 2008 20:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future.
Recent history, though is just 2 Bush's. Reagan cut domestic spending. Increased military spending but we were in the cold war.
I think they can cut spending again with no Bush in power.
Even if we do only count the two Bush eras then that is still 12 years in the White House and a 20 year total timeframe. That is not to be so easily dismissed.
At least class based AA 'masks' a lot of the points people are more hostile towards with race-based AA. Like you can say you're helping disadvantaged, poorer people, and it just so happens that a large portion of disadvantaged, poorer people are minorities =P.
Not many people like to think of themselves as 'priviledged' so it's a step.
republicans do not need to appeal to religious conservatives wholeheartedly to gather their votes, especially given the crusading mentality there that is very much silly in terms of political strategy.
republicans do not need to appeal to religious conservatives wholeheartedly to gather their votes, especially given the crusading mentality there that is very much silly in terms of political strategy.
the question is, who is in charge of the party.
Tony Perkins sure knows a lot about family values.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
As the emcee of Justice Sunday, Tony Perkins positioned himself beside a black preacher and a Catholic "civil rights" activist as he rattled off the phone numbers of senators wavering on President Bush's judicial nominees. The evening's speakers studiously couched their appeals on behalf of Bush's stalled judges in the vocabulary of victimhood, accusing Democratic senators of "filibustering people of faith."
James Dobson, who founded the Family Research Council as the Washington lobbying arm of his Focus on the Family, invoked the Christian right's persecution complex. On an evening when Jews were celebrating the second night of Passover, Dobson claimed, "The biggest Holocaust in world history came out of the Supreme Court" with the Roe v. Wade decision. On his syndicated radio show nearly two weeks earlier, on April 11, Dobson compared the "black robed men" on the Supreme Court to "the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan." By his logic, the burden of oppression had passed from religious and racial minorities to unborn children and pure-hearted heterosexuals engaged in "traditional marriage."
So what do you think Savio? You willing to let Perkins and Dobson control the fate of your party?
imo republican principles are better overall globally its just that their methods had been extremely tested when bush took over then they tend to panic and made some wrong decisions when it mattered most.
On November 07 2008 20:35 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: The discussions about small government and fiscal responsibility are very interesting. The fact is the Republican Party's recent history shows it to absolutely love throwing money around in unprecedented quantities and running up colossal deficits, it is just that it does not spend much of that money on investing in the nation's future.
Recent history, though is just 2 Bush's. Reagan cut domestic spending. Increased military spending but we were in the cold war.
I think they can cut spending again with no Bush in power.
Even if we do only count the two Bush eras then that is still 12 years in the White House and a 20 year total timeframe. That is not to be so easily dismissed.
Actually, outside of the 2 Bush's I don't think that Republicans have a bad record at all. Jibba noted, and he is right, that congressional Republicans were responsible for balancing the budget during the Clinton years. Clinton cannot claim credit for that. That is 8 years of decent governance by Republicans. Then you have Reagan who instituted massive cuts in domestic spending. His even more massive tax cuts coupled with increased military spending overcame the cut in domestic spending and led to increases in the national debt, but at least we saw a Republican who was willing to cut domestic spending. So he has at least a mixed record on spending. Some people argue that our military expenditures are what sped to the collapse of the USSR. That is multifactorial however and can be argued. But at least he thought it was necessary.
As for Star Wars, it never benefitted Reagan, or Bush Sr. but it is becoming more and more common now-a-days that we are having successful tests at shooting down ballistic and medium range missiles. Who knows if that will ever come in handy in negotiations, diplomacy, and/or actual use. We will see.
republicans do not need to appeal to religious conservatives wholeheartedly to gather their votes, especially given the crusading mentality there that is very much silly in terms of political strategy.
the question is, who is in charge of the party.
Tony Perkins sure knows a lot about family values.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
As the emcee of Justice Sunday, Tony Perkins positioned himself beside a black preacher and a Catholic "civil rights" activist as he rattled off the phone numbers of senators wavering on President Bush's judicial nominees. The evening's speakers studiously couched their appeals on behalf of Bush's stalled judges in the vocabulary of victimhood, accusing Democratic senators of "filibustering people of faith."
James Dobson, who founded the Family Research Council as the Washington lobbying arm of his Focus on the Family, invoked the Christian right's persecution complex. On an evening when Jews were celebrating the second night of Passover, Dobson claimed, "The biggest Holocaust in world history came out of the Supreme Court" with the Roe v. Wade decision. On his syndicated radio show nearly two weeks earlier, on April 11, Dobson compared the "black robed men" on the Supreme Court to "the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan." By his logic, the burden of oppression had passed from religious and racial minorities to unborn children and pure-hearted heterosexuals engaged in "traditional marriage."
So what do you think Savio? You willing to let Perkins and Dobson control the fate of your party?
Interesting thing about me is that even though I am socially conservative, I don't really fit in with them (evangelicals, etc.). I happen to belong to a Christian religion that the "Christians" reject and ridicule. My church is more a target of evangelical attacks than they are from any other group/organization.
So I have very mixed feelings about the "Religious Right". I agree with them on social issues, but sometimes I am very angry at them for their close-mindedness and their behavior.
As for the 2 people you referred to, Perkins definitely sounds like a nut. Dobson, I think was making the point that every year more babies are aborted than the total number of Jews that were killed during the Holocaust. But because he used such shocking language, it turns people off.
EDIT: Actually, I don't know a whole lot about Perkins, so I can't really say much about him. But if you are going to quote that article from "TheNation", to be fair you also have to read this:
A Response to False Claims made by The Nation June 15, 2005
In an article in The Nation ("Justice Sunday Preachers" April 26, 2005), Max Blumenthal falsely asserts, "In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana."
Tony Perkins was the manager of the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Woody Jenkins in Louisiana where Impact Media was contracted to make pre-recorded telephone calls for the campaign. In 1999, an unrelated federal investigation uncovered that David Duke had a financial interest in the company, which he did not report to the IRS, resulting in his conviction on federal tax evasion charges. This connection was not known to Mr. Perkins until 1999. Mr. Perkins profoundly opposes the racial views of Mr. Duke and was profoundly grieved to learn that Duke was a party to the company that had done work for the 1996 campaign.
These facts have been widely reported in Louisiana and the reports appearing now in various partisan media are not accurate. In 2003, Mr. Jenkins published a letter in the major daily in Baton Rouge responding to a critical article that resurrected the same distortion. "[I]t is unfortunate," Jenkins wrote, "for you to smear a good man like [then-] Rep. Tony Perkins. There is absolutely nothing about the matter that should taint Rep. Perkins. His intentions were entirely honorable, and neither he nor I have ever been 'in bed' with David Duke as you so crudely and unjustifiably allege."
The assertions made by Mr. Blumenthal are untrue and a distortion of the facts.
On November 08 2008 08:02 oneofthem wrote: lol are you defending star wars
You know what I have always thought would be awesome. I would love to see Iran develop some new missile that could easily reach Israel, and then when they decide to test it and show it off to the world as a PR stunt, I'd love to see their first missile get shot down from a US cruiser as a little "test" of our own.
That, I think would be a clear signal that we are willing and capable of defending our middle eastern allies.
As for Star Wars, it never benefitted Reagan, or Bush Sr. but it is becoming more and more common now-a-days that we are having successful tests at shooting down ballistic and medium range missiles. Who knows if that will ever come in handy in negotiations, diplomacy, and/or actual use. We will see.
That's just not true. Our Patriot missile system is still terrible, and it's even worse than the Israeli counterpart. Right now they're only agitating the Russians more and even still there is no reliable method to shoot down a missile upon entry; you have to do it on launch which requires intelligence, not brute missile force. Not to mention we're only doing testing on crap like SCUDs. Do you know what's going to be the result when we see the next generation of MIRV missiles? Utter failure.
It's a waste of time and money at this point, and one of many ridiculous military expenditures that Reagan put forth. Again, you cannot discount the money he wasted on the military. There were no game changing events that caused him to do it. At least Bush has 9/11.
You know the system Tony Stark created in Iron Man? That's basically a next gen MIRV.
Yeah, it kicks ass. Both sides were supposed to get rid of their MIRVs until Bush fucked it up with the ABM treaty.
Asked if candidates who “literally believe the world is 7 or 8,000 years old, which flies in contradiction of all scientific evidence” are qualified for the White House, Perkins replied: “I think so.” He went on to say: “I hold the same beliefs. And there’s a lot of Americans, especially in the faith community, that believe that God created the earth. And there are flaws in the evolutionary theory — and it is a theory … So, certainly doesn’t disqualify her in their minds.”
You can almost predict by the name of his group and his haircut that he's going to be busted in a boy child pornography ring in about 15-20 years.
On November 08 2008 08:25 Savio wrote: Be sure you don't miss my above edit regarding Perkins.
Just to further clarify about the Star Wars thing.
1980s MIRV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ABM Shield After spending assloads on both ABM (SDI aka Star Wars) and MIRV, Reagan realizes this and starts negotiations for START I/II which eventually passes under Bush Sr., reducing the number of MIRVs from both Russia and the US. GWB decides to completely pull out of 30 year old ABM treaty (which Reagan ignored) and begin shield again, so Putin pulls out of START II. Russia begins r&d on new MIRV systems in 2007 2008 MIRV >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ABM Shield
Yay!
Oh, and Clinton had started work on START III to reduce even more nuclear warheads, but that died when Bush pulled out of the ABM treaty also. They signed SORT, but it doesn't come close to the cuts we were looking at before.
When you consider that there's no reliable way to stop ICBMs BESIDES liftoff, you start to realize why Russia is so annoyed that we're putting a system in Poland and possibly Ukraine. It's not the fear of the shield, it's the fact that it'll be used to take out missiles before entry, nullifying their weapons. Deterrence and diplomacy can go hand in hand, but the shield totally fucks with deterrence.
I guess this whole post is just a vote against neo-con foreign policy. I'm not sure that it will make a difference for electability, but for our sustenance I think it's pretty crucial.
If the GOP gets more and more radical, as various sources hint, then it will only sink lower and lower in the coming decade. It could even disappear completely.
I don't the technical knowledge to defend the Patriot system on technical grounds, but I do think this is interesting:
"Patriot systems have been sold to the Republic of China (Taiwan), Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and Spain. The Republic of Korea is also in the process of purchasing several second-hand Patriot systems after North Korea test-launched several ballistic missiles to the Sea of Japan and went ahead with underground nuclear testing in 2006.[2] In August of 2008, the United States and Poland signed an agreement to temporarily station a US Patriot battalion to help deter attacks from rogue states and to guard the US missile defense complex in Poland."
Seems like other countries don't consider the Patriots useless. I bet these missiles and their launch systems aren't cheap.
On November 08 2008 09:13 onepost wrote: If the GOP gets more and more radical, as various sources hint, then it will only sink lower and lower in the coming decade. It could even disappear completely.
I don't the technical knowledge to defend the Patriot system on technical grounds, but I do think this is interesting:
"Patriot systems have been sold to the Republic of China (Taiwan), Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, and Spain. The Republic of Korea is also in the process of purchasing several second-hand Patriot systems after North Korea test-launched several ballistic missiles to the Sea of Japan and went ahead with underground nuclear testing in 2006.[2] In August of 2008, the United States and Poland signed an agreement to temporarily station a US Patriot battalion to help deter attacks from rogue states and to guard the US missile defense complex in Poland."
Seems like other countries don't consider the Patriots useless. I bet these missiles and their launch systems aren't cheap.
When they first tested Patriot in the early 1990's it was a failure but I think its safe to assume its effectiveness has significantly increased over the years. I think the Republican party will move more to the left back towards center, but still quite right wing. This is basically because they must change to meet what the populace wants, and it would appear to me that a left wing shift is in order. I find the suggestion that Palin will lead the Republican part in the next election comical, she is way to stupid to be able to be a serious presidential candidate (one would hope), and there is no way she could take on Obama unless something terrible happens during his administration.
On November 08 2008 08:02 oneofthem wrote: lol are you defending star wars
You know what I have always thought would be awesome. I would love to see Iran develop some new missile that could easily reach Israel, and then when they decide to test it and show it off to the world as a PR stunt, I'd love to see their first missile get shot down from a US cruiser as a little "test" of our own.
That, I think would be a clear signal that we are willing and capable of defending our middle eastern allies.
Iran is irrelevant in terms of the star wars system. You think the United States would sink ungodly sums of money into a system to defend against a country that not only has a limited missile capacity but no nuclear weapons whatsoever. Ofcourse not the missile shield is aimed to defend against the Russians and the Chinese, the fact they are installing it in Eastern Europe and in Asia further indicates this fact. And here is the main point these nations see this as a threat to their security and have responded in a predictable manner. Russia has already successfully tested a new ballistic missile specifically designed to evade the missile defense system.
The problem with the missile shield is not whether it can defeat missile technology as it stands the problem is that it will and indeed already has triggered a new nuclear arms race whilst simultaneously contributing to significantly increasing tensions between nations which was a prime motivator of the invasion of Georgia for example, and if tensions continue to deteriorate this is probably only the beginning.
After our victories in 2008, I had a lot of high hopes for the Democratic Party and it seemed like gg for Republicans and top-down political movements in general. Then Karl Rove created the Tea Parties. FFFFFUUUU.
On September 27 2010 02:21 Zealotdriver wrote: After our victories in 2008, I had a lot of high hopes for the Democratic Party and it seemed like gg for Republicans and top-down political movements in general. Then Karl Rove created the Tea Parties. FFFFFUUUU.
The Tea Party was just a symptom of the Democratic Party and it's failure to spend political capital correctly. In fact, one can argue that the Tea Party's unforgiving stance towards any incumbents, Republican and Democrat, means that the Tea Party could potentially help Democrats in upcoming elections.
On November 07 2008 05:53 Savio wrote: The Republican party is the natural party that Americans want to be associated with. Its basic principles are more in line with what this country was founded on: individualism, responsibilty, equal opportunity (rather than Equal Outcome), limited government, competition, economic freedom, and faith.
They don't need to realign themselves or come up with something "new". They already speak to the heart of Americanism more than Democrats do. All they have to do is be true to their real principles.
I think this is what you will see. A backlash against "compassionate conservatism", and a return to the ideals that made it the Grand Old Party.
I agree. The only problem is that they need to follow their principles. They appose many things like legalizing Cannabis, gay marriage, abortion,etc.
On November 07 2008 03:45 Savio wrote: 1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment?
I think you're seeing right now with the DADT and the Cordoba Center that neither of these things were abandoned. There's been no realignment at all from the upper levels of the GOP. Their line today is the same as it was 4 years ago.
2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now?
Democrats leaned too far to the center. On the outside, it would seem like going further to the left would alienate more moderates, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. It's been the muddling around and indecisiveness that has truly soured moderates, such as the debacle with the health care bill. Instead of pushing for a strong progressive plan, they wasted time and ended up with a weak compromise when they didn't need to. That falls on Democratic leadership, including Obama.
I also think the polling data is blown out of proportion. Internal polls are testing better for Ds than the media ones, and in some cases, such as in Michigan, it's more about disgust. Granholm carries a lot of disdain across the state, and neither gubernatorial candidate is very appealing. The real outcome will probably be high levels of voter apathy.[/quote]
3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
No clue, it's too early to tell. If I had to guess, it'd be that Republicans are currently more compelling, but they're not making a very good argument either.
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP. 1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly? 2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
If it stays quiet, it's fine. If it gets big, it'll be disastrous. The current version we're seeing during the primaries is pretty artificial and controlled by Republican leadership. If it branches out on its own, possibly now or in 2012, it'll undercut Republican candidates. If the GOP can parlay it into its own image while staying the same and still spending, then it's good for them. The actual movement is probably less alive today than it was 2 years ago.
I can't imagine the ideologues screaming about it will be anywhere to be found in 2 or 4 years. It might work once, but it'll lose effectiveness until voters forget about it again.
This election will be about attitude more than policy.
So…lets hear it! TL decides the fate of the Party of Lincoln…..
Lincoln was a HUGE progressive. Plus if people really took that to heart, you'd lose Georgia and South Carolina.
On September 27 2010 02:21 Zealotdriver wrote: After our victories in 2008, I had a lot of high hopes for the Democratic Party and it seemed like gg for Republicans and top-down political movements in general. Then Karl Rove created the Tea Parties. FFFFFUUUU.
Common misconception in regard to the Tea Party's connections to the Republican Party. Tea Party was very disorganized and decentralized in it's beginnings and had very strong Libertarian leanings at it's conception. Since then, the Democrats have reviled it as a dangerous Right-Wing racist organization, and the Republican's have tried to incorporate and assimilate it out of fear for what it means for their own internal status quo.
In the end, both parties, despite what they say to the public, are content with the way things are functioning. They get to keep their jobs, and in the end, their agendas aren't that different from one another because of the populist nature of the two-party system and how those two parties have to adapt in order to stay alive. This is where the Tea Party movement becomes a threat, but in different ways, to each party.
The threat the Tea Party presents to the Democrats is more direct and apparent; they will cause the Democrats to lose seats in the next election, period. However, the threat they represent to the Republican's is much more subtle in nature. Here, you have a dramatic shift in the entire structure of the party if the Tea Party is assimilated. If not, then you have a drain on votes as the potential pool for Republican voters is split amongst two lines. Essentially, it's do or die for the Republicans when it comes to incorporating the Tea Party Movement into their own Party.
Saying that Karl Rove began the movement, when it represents such a threat to his own party is silly. The only reason you see so many Republican's endorsing the movement is because it's a matter of survival for them as the Movement has taxed more the their voters than the Democrats.
If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
If they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah.
American republican party: the most hated political party on the planet, after China Communist party maybe.
Is really funny all the people with anti-socialist signature in this thread.
Would you tell me that Norway or Finland, which are the most socialist countries in Europ are "sharing of misery" and have "abolished rationnal economy"? I have lived in france and England, I can tell you that the most rationnal and the less miserale country of the two is not the least socialist.
What you guys call "rationnal economy" has led to the biggest disaster in economic history since 60 years. I guess I shouold create a blog about rationalism, we could discuss that further.
It may be time to open the eyes: wild capitalism and ultraliberal economic policies are basically the worst option possible, both for your country and for the world.
Plus, the right of republicans, with their Jesus stuff and their tea party are just completely nuts.
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
Please don't throw that out there like the Tea Party opposes all that, whatever "that" is considering it's a poem filled with metaphors that different people will interpret in different ways. You can oppose the idea's all you want, but please, look into the issue before you pass such judgment on the Tea Party Movement, it's beginnings had a fairly diverse amalgamation of ideologies that have become covered up because of the reasons I stated above. The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate. I can use the same argument in regard to the Democrats, pointing out that more poverty stricken, and uneducated communities vote Democrat, than Republican, and so, Democrats are all uneducated. That's both false, and disparaging to the listener.
I'll admit, there are parts of the movement I like, and parts I'm not a fan of, but I feel that as a general thing, it's good for the nation since it's upsetting the status quo, which always needs a good shake every so often.
@ Biff
American republican party: the most hated political party on the planet, after China Communist party maybe.
Is really funny all the people with anti-socialist signature in this thread.
Would you tell me that Norway or Finland, which are the most socialist countries in Europ are "sharing of misery" and have "abolished rationnal economy"? I have lived in france and England, I can tell you that the most rationnal and the less miserale country of the two is not the least socialist.
What you guys call "rationnal economy" has led to the biggest disaster in economic history since 60 years. I guess I shouold create a blog about rationalism, we could discuss that further.
It may be time to open the eyes: wild capitalism and ultraliberal economic policies are basically the worst option possible, both for your country and for the world.
Plus, the right of republicans, with their Jesus stuff and their tea party are just completely nuts
Economics and Politics aren't about "what works" or even "what helps the most people". It all depends on what your goals are. I want efficiency, and so, I favor a generally laissez-faire economy.
And no, what we've had going on that lead to the current economic disaster, has certainly NOT been a rational economy. Corporatism is not rational. Alot of people mistake Capitalism for Corporatism, and that creates the often justly derided image of Capitalism, given that is has false constituent beliefs attached to it. Given the popular conception of Capitalism, I hate it xD
biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
If they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah.
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
If they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah.
Statue of Liberty is French.
ohh snap, have to love it when people outside of the us try and argue about American politics. and yes the tea party movement is all about god, jesus, and finding the devil- along with witch hunts.
Its appalling to me how grossly misinformed so many people in this thread seem to be. where has everyone been getting their information? cnn,msnbc,fox? All i hear form so many people, is a one liner about how the tea party will ruin everything, and how the vast majority of Americans are un-educated / stupid.
It says a lot about someone when their opinion is so grossly misinformed. And it speaks volumes when they are willing to spout it everywhere under a tone of distaste, and perceived superiority.
To be honest, I think the republican party is dead. As more and more foreigners come to the us, the higher the vote for democrats will be. It is expected that by 2020, 47% of America will be non-whites. And not all 100% of whites will vote for Republicans, more like 50%. And couple that with the fact that more than 90% of non-whites will vote democrat.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: Economics and Politics aren't about "what works" or even "what helps the most people". It all depends on what your goals are. I want efficiency, and so, I favor a generally laissez-faire economy.
And no, what we've had going on that lead to the current economic disaster, has certainly NOT been a rational economy. Corporatism is not rational. Alot of people mistake Capitalism for Corporatism, and that creates the often justly derided image of Capitalism, given that is has false constituent beliefs attached to it. Given the popular conception of Capitalism, I hate it xD
Well, it's precisely your problem: you say you want efficiency, but you don't say what efficiency and how.
Your efficiency is an efficiency which favor a very small class of the population and big companies, period. On paper, ultraliberalism looks nice and the economy is supposed to "work well", but at the end, it has a dramatic social cost, and doesn't even benefit people.
You are the one who should think what the goals are. Efficiency doesn't mean anything. My goals is to live in a country with justice, with wealth properly distributed, with no misery, and with the possibility for everybody to achieve what he wants regardless how much his parents earn.
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
If they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah.
Statue of Liberty is French.
ohh snap, have to love it when people outside of the us try and argue about American politics. and yes the tea party movement is all about god, jesus, and finding the devil- along with witch hunts.
Its appalling to me how grossly misinformed so many people in this thread seem to be. where has everyone been getting their information? cnn,msnbc,fox? All i hear form so many people, is a one liner about how the tea party will ruin everything, and how the vast majority of Americans are un-educated / stupid.
It says a lot about someone when their opinion is so grossly misinformed. And it speaks volumes when they are willing to spout it everywhere under a tone of distaste, and perceived superiority.
For the second time, if I were you I would stop saying everybody is uneducated.
Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
edit: the fact that you even posted the political cartoon clearly shows that you don't understand what happened to the economy with the housing collapse.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising. Fact is, life of most people is better in theses countries, and by better, I mean much better than life of most US citizen now. Norway's economy is more flourishing than American's, and they are 78858545364 times more advanced socially.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
EDIT: See my further post for the difference between socialism and communism.
This one was prolly unecessarly mean.
Melacholia: Now that I read myself, you are prolly right. I think saying to someone he is an ignorant is kind of an insult though. I guess I have felt insulted and over-reacted.
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
The idea that Republicans need to abandon the principles they used to stand for is silly. Of course, many liberals promote the 'need to adapt' because they want it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, by adapt they mean adopt positions that are more liberal.
The conservative movement as I understand it is based on the idea that timeless universal principles can be applied to any society that has a sufficient degree of engagement and morality, no matter the context, and that the resulting policies will be more beneficial than any historical alternatives. Thus, they want to 'conserve' these principles.
This is directly opposed to the 'progressive' viewpoint that truth and what is right are relative, and 'progress' as society gets more technologically advanced and their needs change, etc.
Our positions are determined by whether or not we see timeless universal principles as a pattern throughout history across civilizations, cultures, etc. I personally clearly see patterns of history and individual and collective behavior that lead me to believe in timeless principles and rules that apply to society. Each rising generation seems to think they are unique in some way because they have new technology, but history has shown that while technological contexts change, the way people behave is the same. The new contexts just reveal new, previously latent applications of timeless principles of behavior.
I for one consider myself conservative, but am frustrated by what I perceive to be corruption in the Republican party. I feel that our attitude towards government has become to dependent. Whether or not you think 90% of tea party members are racists clinging to God and their guns or not, the principle of ordinary people holding an established government accountable hearkens back to America's infancy, and I would hope we can agree that the group of men involved in its creation, while holding widely opposing views, had the wisdom to recognize and apply timeless principles and create quite a successful experiment in governance.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
Communism is radical socialism
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Now, I see how educated you are. Have you read a goddamn fucking line of Marx? Do you even know what communism means?
Do you know that communism as such has never existed?
Do you know that communism means DISAPEARANCE of the state?
My god. And you said I was ignorant. That's hillarious.
see now im even more confused biff. Communism is simply a form of socialism that abolishes private ownership. soo.... what exactly did i say that was so wrong?
On September 27 2010 04:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Oh and by the way:
EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it
Yes, true conservatives have serious issues with this. True fiscal conservatives don't call Clinton a tax and spend liberal. They also are seriously concerned about President Obama's deficit which if I understand correctly, is several times greater than all of these after only 2 years.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
On September 27 2010 03:04 teekesselchen wrote: If only America would have better education, at least the Tea Party wing would simply vanish. It takes serious mental damage to support such archaic ideas which specifically oppose everything good the USA ever represented. Come on, the virtues of the USA are engraved into the statue of liberty itself and yet the so "patriotic" tea party quite obviously despises them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus
If they should ever have serious control over decisions in US politics, the whole nation will regress into medieval intellectual poverty. From "defenders of human rights" back to "hunting the devil", yeah.
Statue of Liberty is French.
I don't see how that changes anything. True it was made in France, but we accepted it and the quote engraved on it is known by most American schoolchildren. The statue itself is a symbol not of France but of the US.
As far as this year's election goes, there's a possibility that the Democrats will retain control of both houses but there will definitely be losses for the Democrats. More than likely the house is going down with the senate maintaining a small Democrat majority but the election is still a month away and voters still need time to get to know their candidates. The tea party I think is double edged blade for the GOP, a movement so uncohesive is bound to have some nutballs that push moderates away but is doing a great job of energizing their base (and lets not pretend that the tea party is not the GOP's base). Moderates are probably torn between disappointment with Obama and the economy and exasperation at the GOP's consistent lack of any new ideas.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
American politics are so frightening. So many people here that seem to be reasonable yet are holding discussions about how to preserve the republican party when that same party has just done incredible amounts of damage not just to America but to the world and is populated almost exclusively either by cynics or religious lunatics. But no, we have to stop Pelosi and her radical agenda!!
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution?
There are many grey areas of belief, although this is often defined as a binary position. Additionally, this is not necessarily directly related to creating good public policy.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies?
If conservatives are anti-sex, why do they have more kids? Isn't it more invasive for Federal law to dictate to States what they should do about abortion, whereas otherwise there would be a nice eclectic mix and people could live where they like?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities?
If you know history, you'd understand that both parties are involved in bad racial policies. I'm curious what you mean by physical minorities?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible?
I think it's safe to say both parties are horrendously guilty of this.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors?
In principle I agree with this, however there are many examples, particularly of those involving repeat sex offenders, where this is clearly not a good idea. Some individuals may be unsafe for society. Maybe we should reform our jail system and not just let everyone loose?
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics?
I don't think you can honestly say this. Many who opposed health care reform did so because they thought the bill would be bad financially for individuals and the nation as a whole. Thus, they did not oppose health care reform, they opposed a bill with that name which they didn't see as living up to its namesake.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote:Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
If you review the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and knew more about the context of Jefferson's much mis-interpreted 'Wall of Separation' statement, I don't think you would claim this.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
If you could list a few reasons I would appreciate it.
In my limited knowledge (if you can even call it that) it's because of human traits.
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth.
Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr.
can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market.
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth.
Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr.
can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market.
On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
ok that is all beyond the point- neither of those two systems have a free market. Free markets drive the world. and regardless of any form of socialism, or communism- both of these are not free market. We are splitting hairs at this point. I was simply trying to point out that the free market clearly produces better results, and clearly helps with economic and social growth.
Harking back to another one of your comments, the USSR was still disillusioned, by the people- so tell me, how was the quality of life better thirty years ago for the Russian people? The people chose to end the ussr.
can we please get back on topic here? I was simply trying to talk about the free market, i was not trying to discuss socialism, or communism. The only thing of importance, is the fact that both of those systems do not have a free market.
None of this system is liberal capitalism.
No really?
So we are splitting hair
I didn't have an idea that communism was not "a extrem form of socialism" but it doesn't matter, it's the same: it's not liberal capitalism.
Free market is amazing. I love free market. Free market runs the world. Please more free market.
Cool argumentation.
Saying that communism is an extrem form of socialism is exactly as off as saying that democracy is an advanced for of capitalism. It just doesn't mean anything at all.
On September 27 2010 04:23 Ramiel wrote: Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
i agree, you need some governance, but less is more.
as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win. socialism is the best form of governance. communism is even better- on paper.
On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
i agree, you need some governance, but less is more.
as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win.
Wow didn't expect that. Thanks I guess. Next time let's talk about BW or something, maybe we can agree :-)
On September 27 2010 05:06 Comeh wrote: An Unregulated free market system, barring some form of way of eliminating externalities and removal of informational issues, don't really work in the long run. Some form of regulation and government intervention (to some extent) is required. That's really all I want to say.
i agree, you need some governance, but less is more.
as for biff- Im done. Our arguments are not even on point. you win. socialism is the best form of governance. communism is even better- on paper.
and then ego came back and you edited your post lol. Pity, isn't it, I had some hope for like a couple of seconds, hahahahahaha.
On September 27 2010 04:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:33 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:15 Melancholia wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:07 Mindcrime wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote: China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
You should know what terms mean before you use them.
Um, you do know that liberal market policies are free-market ones, right? The term "liberal" has been warped somewhat in the US. Or were you commenting about about how he made the rather obvious point that communism is a form of socialism?
I wish I had a picture of Marx facepalming to post.
How about... for claiming that there was a "communist market" in China?
lolololololol
It's terrible that everybody has a strong opinion about socialism / communism and then you realize that most of theses don't even have a clue about what communism even mean.
Ok.
Communism: Stateless and classeless society which has abolished private property, and in which there is no worker specialisation between intellectual / manual work, nor between city and countryside.
Socialism was supposed to be a moment between capitalism and communism where the state was taking control in the name of the proletarians of the production. It was meant to last a few years before the establishment of communism, which obviously never happened anywhere for various reason that I can explain if someone is interested.
USSR: Union of soviet SOCIALIST republic. That was not a communist country, for christ's sake!
If you could list a few reasons I would appreciate it.
In my limited knowledge (if you can even call it that) it's because of human traits.
Well it is not. I mean, at least that's not the first reason.
There are four main reason, and this for every marxist revolution of the XXth century.
1- A proletarian revolution, marxist or not, always finds itself to have to fight interior and exterior ennemies almost immediately. To survive, it needs a stage of terror. French revolution is the most obvious example: from the end of 1792, the Revolution becomes a dictatorship to fight the ennemy exterior (the coalition of monarchies) and interior (Vendée war, royalists). For the Russian Revolution, it is even more obvious. The revolutionary avant-garde needs to organize itself with an exetrem rigor to fight the whites, the european contigents, etc etc...
Fact is that a proletarian Revolution is extremely precarious. When revolutions have failed to organize the state of terror, like in 1848 or even better, during Paris Commune in 1870, it has always been repressed and destroyed almost immediately.
Now, our first problem is that it is almost impossible to get out of the state of terror, because the emergency somehow never finishes, and because you have organized with a military efficiency a government which has had to use very doubtful methods.
That's the first point.
2- The second thing, and that's the most important part, is that Marx has theorized the passage from capitalism to communism via socialism for very advanced countries in term of industrialization. Marx believed that where there were the most workers, the biggest industry, revolutions were more likely to happen. His model was Germany. Marx historic materialism is based on a vision of history based on class struggle: capitalism was a necessary stage, after feudalism and before socialism.
Marxist revolutions during the XXth century have happened in extremely retarded countries: Russia, which were basically still feudals. Lenin and Mao find themselves with a huge problem very quickly: their respective country were not at all ready for a quick transition. That's why they try desperately to industrialize their country by force (NEP for Stalin, great leap forward etc... for Mao), with very limited success.
The reason Lenin kept the power was because he was confronted to a huge theoretical contradiction, by having his proletarian revolution happening in a country where it was not supposed at all to happen, and which was absolutely not ready. And to get it ready, you needed it to be really strong industrially, and that is something that Marx had planned as being the job of the capitalist stage.
There is a reason why Rosa Luxembourg criticizes Soviet Union as soon as 1919 for being a "State Capitalism". In order to get to the required industrial level to do the transition, Soviet Russia needs to somehow beat capitalism at what it does the best.
3- Third point is that revolution was supposed to be international, worldwide. Workers of all countries, unite, says Marx. Our new born socialist state is de facto dependant and in competition with capitalist countries around. The reason why revolutionary want the revolution to happen everywhere is not that they are crazy messianist, but that Marx had thought the revolution as an international movement, and that the whole thing can not work with the pressure and competition of capitalist countries.
When Stalin starts to talk about "Socialism in One country" in 1924, the possibility of a transition to communism die. You can't abolish private property and supress the state in a single country: it would get eaten alive.
4- Then there is, and maybe that's the worst thing, the development of a bureaucratic class. The bureaucracy class takes the power extremely quickly and becomes the equivalent of a new bourgeoisie. That's what Stalinism represents and that's what Mao tried to fight with his Cultural Revolution.
Bureaucracy develops naturally in the socialist state which needs to manage the whole economy of the country (since the bourgeoisie has disappeared). If you don't move quickly towards the communist stage, as planned by Marx, your bureaucracy develops, and doesn't want to give back the power.
You get into a dictatorship. Stalin is a perfect example, but what China has become, despite all Mmao's effort to fight the phenomenon, is even worse, since the bureaucracy has moved towards a pure and simple capitalist dictatorship.
Now you can summarize that by saying that human nature etc..., but really, the problem is a theoretical and very complex problem.
If you are interested, it's always good to read "State and Revolution", by Lenin., from 1917. You understand a lot.
To me, the polls are indicative of the public being tired of the current Obama administration - one of nonaction.
So far, this administration has been mostly talk and very little substance. Their actions taken against unemployment have been unsuccessful, and the gulf oil spill definitely did not help their PR. The economy is slugging, young people in record numbers remain unemployed. No one knows wtf is up with the new health insurance system.
If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
I love when nobody responds to good posts
Im not a democrat perse, moreso anti republican, but this is exactly how I feel.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office. But even so he has changed quite a bit. The most stark change is the change which we do not see. It might seem bad now, but where would we be under right wing governance now? Better a slow recovery than becoming worse. I consider the beginning of a recovery and saving us from the ruin of the only alternative... substantial.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
As for the title of this thread, demographic studies indicate that the Republican party has no future. Currently, it looks like a party with voters largely made up of old white males will not be able to ever have a national majority sometime around 2015-2020. How I hope we can keep them out of power until then.
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
I love when nobody responds to good posts
Im not a democrat perse, moreso anti republican, but this is exactly how I feel.
He also forgot which party doesn't want to support education, research, and which party has been initiating wars. Bolded the decifit part because the hilarious thing is this is what republicans are running on... god.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: To me, the polls are indicative of the public being tired of the current Obama administration - one of nonaction.
So far, this administration has been mostly talk and very little substance. Their actions taken against unemployment have been unsuccessful, and the gulf oil spill definitely did not help their PR. The economy is slugging, young people in record numbers remain unemployed. No one knows wtf is up with the new health insurance system.
If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
On the environment:
Included funding for "green" jobs in the stimulus bill
Initiated first steps to develop a legally-binding treaty to reduce mercury emissions worldwide
Dedicated more than $60 billion for clean energy
Instituted "cash for clunkers," getting more fuel efficient cars on the street
Acknowledges reality of climate change and his desire to work on an international policy like Kyoto
Emphasized the value of science (not political opinion) within the EPA
Allocated $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems (for automobiles)
Declared (via EPA) carbon dioxide a threat to health, the first step towards regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act
Funded Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant, which gives $2.8 billion to cities
Put over 2 million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks under federal protection, the largest conservation effort in 15 years Funding a $475 million initiative to restore and clean the Great Lakes
On healthcare:
Overturned the federal funding ban for stem cell research
Instituted better standards for comparative research in medicine and an agency to handle this
Added staff to the FDA and brought back emphasis on science
Allocated over $1 billion to the National Institutes of Health, whose budget Bush let stagnate
Eliminated funding for abstinence-only education
Signed an executive order repealing the "Mexico City policy" or "global gag rule" that withheld U.S. funds from organizations that discuss or provide family planning services abroad
Announced US would resume contributions to the UN population fund for family planning and more than double the previous contribution made in 2001
Appropriated $19 billion in the stimulus package to help implement an electronic medical record system
Set aside billions in budget to overhaul the health care system
Enacted Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization, providing healthcare to 11 million children
Established 65% COBRA subsidy for 7 million unemployed Americans
Allocated $1 billion for prevention and wellness programs
Provided $87 billion to states to bolster their Medicaid programs during the downturn
Increased funding for urban HIV/AIDS Prevention and Awareness
On Education, Equality, Public Safety, Families, etc.:
Expressed a desire to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell
Described the Defense of Marriage Act as "unfair" and "discriminatory" and said they supported it being overturned
Includes atheists in his definition of Americans
Extended tax credits for mothers to return to college, for tuition, and for college textbook purchases
Has agreed to make the visitors' lists to the White House public
Signed executive order requiring Guantanamo to be closed within 1 year and allocated funds/personnel for that purpose
Included provision in stimulus legislation that, for the first time, supported the ideas of Net Neutrality-like non-discrimination and openness for the Internet
The administration demonstrated a new commitment to fighting for change on the UN Human Rights Council by announcing it will run for a seat next year, reversing the Bush administration boycott
Announced that the U.S. will support a United Nations declaration urging nations to decriminalize homosexuality
Created office of Urban Policy
Gave Department of Justice $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces (cut during Bush years)
Allocated $5 billion for early learning programs, including Head Start, Early Head Start, child care, and programs for children with special needs
Signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices
Enacted the Making Homes Affordable Program
Boosted credit flow to small businesses
Increased focus on funding for high speed rail
Funded the Community Oriented Police program (COPS) Appointed first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court and most qualified Supreme Court candidate in decades
On foreign affairs (see link for more complete list):
Secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster [Pakistan's] economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism"
Foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been at once remarkable and under-appreciated..."He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region"
Led global response to the economic crisis through the G20, obtaining commitments of $1.1 trillion to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable economies
Established major agenda to protect Americans from spread/use of deadly weapons, negotiating new nuclear weapon cuts with Russia and committing to the elimination of nuclear weapons
Signed an executive order banning torture and requiring interrogations to conform to Army Field Manual Standards and Geneva Conventions
Signed an executive order to close CIA secret prisons
Cut ineffective, unnecessary and outdated weapons programs such as the F-22, the DDG -1000 destroyer, and Future Combat Systems
Vowed to bring the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into the regular budget by 2010
Largest increase for veterans funding in 30 years
Restored the UN Ambassador to a cabinet level position
Signed Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in defense procurement and contracting Helped free 2 American journalists from a North Korea prison Led the UN Security Council in voting for strong sanctions against North Korea Negotiated with Russia to allow overflights over their territory to establish a supply route into Northern Afghanistan
On workers:
OSHA announced it was moving to protect workers from...popcorn long; last-minute Bush rules would have added 2 years before it could be considered
Revoked Bush administration executive order on regulatory review that enabled political appointees at the White House's OMB to override agencies' rulemaking, undermining everything from worker safety to environmental protection
Signed 3 executive orders, including one reversing a Bush order to limit union representation on federal contracts
Moved to prevent federal contractors from being reimbursed for unionbusting propganda compaigns during collective bargaining
Signed executive order overturning Bush administration's ban on project labor agreements (PLAs) on federally funded construction (PLAs set wages and establish work rules and methods of settling grievances on large multi-contractor construction projects)
Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, guaranteeing the right to sue for wage discrimination based on gender, race, disability, etc.
Extended unemployment benefits for struggling Americans
Obama's Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects
Cut taxes for 95% of all working families
Provided over $500 million in funding for vocational rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it
You're right. it is old. We have a bit more data now:
Its a good thing we have single party rule by Democrats now so they can solve the problem of big defcits.
On September 27 2010 04:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:57 Melancholia wrote: Just once, just once I would like to see voters actually vote against the most dishonest politicians. The Republican party would wither and die that election. But it will never come to pass, people are too content imagining that the world actually runs the way they wish it did. That their moral standpoint allows them to ignore actual law, that science only exists when it is convenient.
Which party is more likely to not believe in evolution? Which one has the strongest history of invasive, anti-sex policies? Has in the modern era most often opposed sexual, physical, racial, and other minorities? ls most prone to supporting tax policies that would explode the deficit while simultaneously claiming to be fiscally responsible? Believes that locking people up is a better way to deal with the medical condition of addiction than sending them to doctors? Opposes health care reform in the face of desperate health care and financial statistics? Supports unconstitutional religious intrusion into public government?
A vote for the Democratic party is a vote for sanity. Unfortunately, it seems we've all gone completely nuts.
EDIT: I know it's old, but gotta love it
You're right. it is old. We have a bit more data now:
Ah, yes, now we have the numbers from Bush's final budget.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
I've heard Obama called a lot of names running the whole gambit of "*insert string of socialist/racial slurs*" to "the second coming of the messiah." Never once have I heard him be called a moderate.
If it stays quiet, it's fine. If it gets big, it'll be disastrous. The current version we're seeing during the primaries is pretty artificial and controlled by Republican leadership. If it branches out on its own, possibly now or in 2012, it'll undercut Republican candidates.
The Republican Party is astroturfing Tea Partiers...
...Astroturfing candidates that then go around unseating incumbent Republicans in primaries.
Call them uneducated cretins or whatever current liberals call whoever disagrees with them, but to argue that the Republican evil machine created the Tea Party is pretty untenable.
Democrats leaned too far to the center.
Haven't looked at the recent polls, but have they leaned so far to the center that a majority of those polled now favor full repeal of PPACA?
(apologies, I'm bad at quoting, but this seems to be about the last substantive post before everything got derailed into some curious hypothetical study of communism)
Republican party IMO needs to be cleansed entirely of neoconservatives (hacks who support wasteful and costly nation-building wars in the middle east, that aren't even in US national interest) and must once again come to represent ideas that reflect actual conservatism, such a the ones of this brilliant man: http://www.buchanan.org/blog/equality-or-freedom-4501
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President announced the “Making Home Affordable” home refinancing plan. The President launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses. The President and Secretary Geithner announced the details of the Financial Stability Plan. President Obama played a lead role in G-20 Summit that produced a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis. The President signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which gives the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud, from lending to the financial system, and creates a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial practices that brought us to this point. The President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures, providing $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness , and helping to stabilize the housing market for everybody. The President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.
Civil Rights
The President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.
Disabilities
The President issued an Executive Order repealing the Bush-Era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The President signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.
Fiscal Responsibility
The President signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse. The President launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology. The President wrote to the congressional leadership calling on them to pass statutory Pay-As-You-Go rules so that any new non-emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion offset in the budget. The President signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system.
Immigration
The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured — and removes barriers preventing legal immigrant children from being covered. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides over $400 million in funds to strengthen security and infrastructure for ports of entry on the Southwest border.
Service
The President signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a hallmark piece of legislation. The Serve America Act will increase the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 volunteers to 250,000 by 2017. The Act also creates a Social Innovation Fund that will invest in ideas that are proven to improve outcomes and “what works” funds in federal agencies to promote effective and innovative programs
Taxes
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a broad range of tax cuts aimed at making the tax code more fair and supporting the middle class:
95% of all working families will receive a tax cut 70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers 2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone
If you follow the link there is a little bit more regarding government transparency and urban development.
As you can see, Obama is done a lot - no he hasn't closed Guantanamo, nor has he ended DADT, two major failings IMO, but to say he has done nothing means you aren't paying attention.
Regarding Clinton's success, he was president at a time where it seemed, there republicans willing to play ball with his proposals - nothing like that exists in this administration. Every single thing proposed by the democrats and Obama is opposed and filibustered. Republicans have voted against bills THEY proposed because the Democrats liked the proposal.
As a Canadian I really enjoy watching American politics and almost everything that occurs in your nation will have an impact on mine, it just saddens me to see the tea party and the current form of republicans as the national opposition.
Wouldn't it be easier to say that Republicans were more Moderate during Clinton's years, look at Gingrich and how he has gone mental in order to test the waters for a Presidential bid.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
60 democrats in the senate does not imply they will all agree to vote to end any given filibuster, especially given the spectrum of ideology you can find amongst the members of any party.. You always have to placate both sides. It was never 60 democrats entirely aligned with Obama heading his beckon call.
The GOP has taken the blame everything on Obama position, while opposing almost all Obama legislation. This is why nothing has happened.
Bad economy? Obama Bad health care? Obama No jobs? Obama Oil spill? Obama Herpes? Obama
I might be drunkposting tonight a bit too much, but chiming in to agree that Obama's done quite a lot.
I don't see "waves hands, bends economic law, and bestows affordable healthcare to all Americans"/PPACA on this list. Then again, saving all of America's children from dying of disease hasn't been a much politically advertised subject, because it is clear that America is full of irrational ingrates.
You can also add a Nobel Peace Prize, an area in which he crushed competition through all his efforts to promote peace in certain areas of the world. Obama also should have won the Heisman Trophy.
Also the stimulus plan did save the economy, and just because people complain about a nebulous "jobs saved or created" metric doesn't mean this in any way detracts from its success, because there are good economic models for measuring what could have happened if there hadn't been a stimulus.
You know, like:
Stimulus accounting is an honorable profession, and clearly not a case of just making numbers up.
The TC talks about the tea party like they are a little aside, when in fact the three questions he's asking are entirely related to the tea party movement.
Because the tea party represents the section of the republican party that froths at the mouth when subjects like abortion and sex education come up (and I really don't think that's an unfair characterization - these are mostly stupid, backwards people with little to no formal education beyond what is mandatory), and because I suspect the tea party will come to dominate the progressive elements of the GOP, social issues are the new big thing.
That's not to say that useful and pertinent social issues (like, say, healthcare or infrastructure spending) will be the focus, just the useless stuff like working our very hardest to make sure the gays get a reminder that they ain't welcome hurrr, see?
As for why they are polling well, people are poorer than ever, and they're goddamn angry about it. McCain was going to beat Obama in a landslide before the economy imploded. He was top dog, and he ate **** because something went wrong on his watch (sort of).
As for the future of the GOP, the next few years will see real republicans fighting for control of their party against the maniacs and lunatics who waste our time and money on stupid debates like making sure stem cell research stays back in the 1990s instead of worrying about real issues like energy and industry.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President announced the “Making Home Affordable” home refinancing plan. The President launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses. The President and Secretary Geithner announced the details of the Financial Stability Plan. President Obama played a lead role in G-20 Summit that produced a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis. The President signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which gives the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud, from lending to the financial system, and creates a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial practices that brought us to this point. The President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures, providing $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness , and helping to stabilize the housing market for everybody. The President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.
Civil Rights
The President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.
Disabilities
The President issued an Executive Order repealing the Bush-Era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The President signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.
Fiscal Responsibility
The President signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse. The President launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology. The President wrote to the congressional leadership calling on them to pass statutory Pay-As-You-Go rules so that any new non-emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion offset in the budget. The President signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system.
Immigration
The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured — and removes barriers preventing legal immigrant children from being covered. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides over $400 million in funds to strengthen security and infrastructure for ports of entry on the Southwest border.
Service
The President signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a hallmark piece of legislation. The Serve America Act will increase the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 volunteers to 250,000 by 2017. The Act also creates a Social Innovation Fund that will invest in ideas that are proven to improve outcomes and “what works” funds in federal agencies to promote effective and innovative programs
Taxes
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a broad range of tax cuts aimed at making the tax code more fair and supporting the middle class:
95% of all working families will receive a tax cut 70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers 2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone
If you follow the link there is a little bit more regarding government transparency and urban development.
As you can see, Obama is done a lot - no he hasn't closed Guantanamo, nor has he ended DADT, two major failings IMO, but to say he has done nothing means you aren't paying attention.
Regarding Clinton's success, he was president at a time where it seemed, there republicans willing to play ball with his proposals - nothing like that exists in this administration. Every single thing proposed by the democrats and Obama is opposed and filibustered. Republicans have voted against bills THEY proposed because the Democrats liked the proposal.
As a Canadian I really enjoy watching American politics and almost everything that occurs in your nation will have an impact on mine, it just saddens me to see the tea party and the current form of republicans as the national opposition.
Cheers!
In addition, while Clinton was in power, he had the line item veto. (It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court later). What it meant, was that Clinton could veto parts of legislation, rather than the whole thing.
Remember the fiasco a few months back when the bill to compensate 9/11 heroes for health trouble was defeated, because the democrats were afraid that republicans would insert a provision barring illegal immigrants from receiving the compensation? If Obama had had line item veto, he could have simply stripped out that provision come signing time.
The line item veto was extremely significant with respect to the federal surplus during the later part of his presidency, because it meant that he could strip out earmark spending with ease. By vetoing a billion here, a billion there, it soon added up to real money.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The President announced the “Making Home Affordable” home refinancing plan. The President launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses. The President and Secretary Geithner announced the details of the Financial Stability Plan. President Obama played a lead role in G-20 Summit that produced a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis. The President signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act which gives the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud, from lending to the financial system, and creates a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial practices that brought us to this point. The President signed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, expanding on the Making Home Affordable Program to help millions of Americans avoid preventable foreclosures, providing $2.2 billion to help combat homelessness , and helping to stabilize the housing market for everybody. The President signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act to protect Americans from unfair and deceptive credit card practices.
Civil Rights
The President signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers.
Disabilities
The President issued an Executive Order repealing the Bush-Era restrictions on embryonic stem cell research. The President signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first piece of comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis.
Fiscal Responsibility
The President signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse. The President launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology. The President wrote to the congressional leadership calling on them to pass statutory Pay-As-You-Go rules so that any new non-emergency tax cut or entitlement expansion offset in the budget. The President signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system.
Immigration
The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured — and removes barriers preventing legal immigrant children from being covered. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides over $400 million in funds to strengthen security and infrastructure for ports of entry on the Southwest border.
Service
The President signed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a hallmark piece of legislation. The Serve America Act will increase the size of AmeriCorps from 75,000 volunteers to 250,000 by 2017. The Act also creates a Social Innovation Fund that will invest in ideas that are proven to improve outcomes and “what works” funds in federal agencies to promote effective and innovative programs
Taxes
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included a broad range of tax cuts aimed at making the tax code more fair and supporting the middle class:
95% of all working families will receive a tax cut 70% of the tax benefits goes to the middle 60% of American workers 2 million families will be lifted out of poverty by the tax cuts in the Recovery Act More than $150 billion in tax cuts will help low-income and vulnerable households during the economic recovery About 1 Million jobs will be created or saved by these tax cuts alone
If you follow the link there is a little bit more regarding government transparency and urban development.
As you can see, Obama is done a lot - no he hasn't closed Guantanamo, nor has he ended DADT, two major failings IMO, but to say he has done nothing means you aren't paying attention.
Regarding Clinton's success, he was president at a time where it seemed, there republicans willing to play ball with his proposals - nothing like that exists in this administration. Every single thing proposed by the democrats and Obama is opposed and filibustered. Republicans have voted against bills THEY proposed because the Democrats liked the proposal.
As a Canadian I really enjoy watching American politics and almost everything that occurs in your nation will have an impact on mine, it just saddens me to see the tea party and the current form of republicans as the national opposition.
Cheers!
In addition, while Clinton was in power, he had the line item veto. (It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court later). What it meant, was that Clinton could veto parts of legislation, rather than the whole thing.
Remember the fiasco a few months back when the bill to compensate 9/11 heroes for health trouble was defeated, because the democrats were afraid that republicans would insert a provision barring illegal immigrants from receiving the compensation? If Obama had had line item veto, he could have simply stripped out that provision come signing time.
The line item veto was extremely significant with respect to the federal surplus during the later part of his presidency, because it meant that he could strip out earmark spending with ease. By vetoing a billion here, a billion there, it soon added up to real money.
To be fair Clinton had the line-item veto for less than 2 years, from '96 to '98. Not saying it didn't matter, but he certainly managed to do stuff without it.
On September 27 2010 11:56 VonLego wrote: I've heard Obama called a lot of names running the whole gambit of "*insert string of socialist/racial slurs*" to "the second coming of the messiah." Never once have I heard him be called a moderate.
But that is precisely the problem, is it not? Those on the right vilify him as being some devilish mixture of Marx/Mao, while those on the left decry that he has not taken more liberal positions. He is in truth a left leaning centrist and so catches flak from both sides at once.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The GOP has taken the blame everything on Obama position, while opposing almost all Obama legislation. This is why nothing has happened.
Bad economy? Obama Bad health care? Obama No jobs? Obama Oil spill? Obama Herpes? Obama
Are you suggesting that wasn't the case for President Bush? Or any president during the last century. That is part of the job. People will make you take the blame for bad things that are happening (like the BP oil spill...its not like Obama caused it but it hurt him) and give you credit for things that went well (big economic boom driven by internet business proliferation during the Clinton years).
Certainly nothing new here.
And I don't think anyone who paid any attention at all in the '90s would say that Republicans were nicer to Clinton than they are to Obama. Clinton's presidency was failing (it appeared in many ways like Obama's right now), and they lost control of congess in the midterms (a possibility in 2010 as well) and Clinton responded by moving significantly to the middle and passing a lot of moderate/conservative bills.
Whether Obama will do that or not will, I think, decide whether or not he will be a 2 term President. Because he certainly isn't on the "2-term" path right now.
Obama almost certainly will not be elected to a second-term. He's losing control of his own party as the far left complains he does nothing and the moderates realize they've elected a socialist elitist who cares nothing about the average joe.
Democrats are becoming very fragmented as the white house seeks to turtle in its own shell directing blame for its faults at everyone else, leaving congressmen to fend for themselves for this upcoming election.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Fiscal conservatism, responsibility, and no more free handouts - that's the true republican party. If someone runs on that, they will win 100%. They don't even have to be well qualified politically. It's about returning this country from a hyperliberal track to its roots.
I believe that people need to value hard work and smart choices. I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts. I don't think any hard working American does. People don't like to work hard and see other people slack off and get the same benefits. It's not what America is about and it's not what we stand for as a country. Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
I HOPE you realize that Bill Clinton tried to get similar health care legislation passed... and failed, right?
Also it's damn hard when your "filibuster proof majority" is EXACTLY 60 people and you need EVERY SINGLE member of your party (which is more opinion-diverse than the other party) to be on board.
On September 27 2010 21:36 xxpack09 wrote: I HOPE you realize that Bill Clinton tried to get similar health care legislation passed... and failed, right?
Also it's damn hard when your "filibuster proof majority" is EXACTLY 60 people and you need EVERY SINGLE member of your party (which is more opinion-diverse than the other party) to be on board.
dont forget that this number includes independent democrates like joe lieberman, who's not a democrat at all but more often than not joining the ranks of conservative sellouts.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
On September 27 2010 21:17 Floophead_III wrote: Obama almost certainly will not be elected to a second-term. He's losing control of his own party as the far left complains he does nothing and the moderates realize they've elected a socialist elitist who cares nothing about the average joe.
Democrats are becoming very fragmented as the white house seeks to turtle in its own shell directing blame for its faults at everyone else, leaving congressmen to fend for themselves for this upcoming election.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Fiscal conservatism, responsibility, and no more free handouts - that's the true republican party. If someone runs on that, they will win 100%. They don't even have to be well qualified politically. It's about returning this country from a hyperliberal track to its roots.
I believe that people need to value hard work and smart choices. I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts. I don't think any hard working American does. People don't like to work hard and see other people slack off and get the same benefits. It's not what America is about and it's not what we stand for as a country. Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide.
TLDR: Gov't is too big spends too much.
What are you on about? Your post smacks of ignorance. Let's pick it apart: "Socialist elitist" - throwing around completely nonsensical bandwagon slogans without giving evidence or saying why it's a bad thing. Evidently you probably just define socialism as everything you don't think America should stand for.
His policies having no academic merit - Firstly this is completely wrong, if there is any truth to your "socialist elitist" branding it is in that Obama employs intelligent academic types to advise him particularly in economic policy. Paul Krugman and Stiglitz have been pushing the stimulus the whole time. Secondly how on earth can it be a completely political move if the stimulus act was opposed by so many, think of how angry the people were at the bailouts of investment banks, if anything this was anti-political.
"Hyperliberal track" - Do you have any idea how other countries in the world are run? America is really an exceedingly backward country in terms of social policy and to call it "hyperliberal" is really quite amusing. And again, you fail to point out why being liberal is bad, you just say the fiscal conservatism , "responsibility" and no free handouts are good things, repeating your oft heard mantra with no evidence or reasoning.
"I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts." - Thanks again for just saying what you don't like. The whole purpose of political debate and discussion seems to elude you.
"Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide." - I don't think anyone in the entire world thinks that hard work shouldn't be rewarded, and that people should slack off and receive the same benefits. Please realize that all liberals agree with you on this point. The point of things like affirmative action and handouts and healthcare is that while you should reward hard work, you shouldn't reward luck or punish bad luck. You shouldn't punish people who are born with or come to suffer from diseases beyond their control (hence healthcare), you shouldn't punish people for having fewer opportunities because of their social strata they're born into (hence affirmative action, welfare for the poorest etc). Of course as you say things can go too far, and they have in other countries. But if someone cannot afford health insurance he or she is forever vulnerable to being punished by luck, surely that is a wrong in society that shouldn't exist in the modern world. By not having universal healthcare you are denying the poorest people a fundamental human right.
Finally with regards to handouts and stimulus it has been proved in practice and theory (to the extent that anything can be "proved" in economic theory) that stimulus can have a regenerative effect on an ailing economy. Considering many of the world's most intelligent economists are still debating the merits of stimulus in this situation one cannot simply say it is bad. In fact, since you know nowhere near enough economics (neither do I) to engage at the most serious level of debate, you should not have an opinion on it at all.
Essentially, some of your views are wrong, and some may be right. But what you have done is simply state most of them without evidence and justification, and most likely you are in no position to provide that until you do a lot more reading and learning.
On September 27 2010 21:17 Floophead_III wrote: Obama almost certainly will not be elected to a second-term. He's losing control of his own party as the far left complains he does nothing and the moderates realize they've elected a socialist elitist who cares nothing about the average joe.
So the left realises that they elected a centrist, while the right realises they elected a centrist? Terrible, I know.
Democrats are becoming very fragmented as the white house seeks to turtle in its own shell directing blame for its faults at everyone else, leaving congressmen to fend for themselves for this upcoming election.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
His policies do have academic merit, you are simply libertarian and hence completely ignore mainstream economics. Something about countercyclical fiscal/monetary policy.
FYI, debt isn't bad when its used to fund investment. And thats what stimulus/deficit spending is. With effective fiscal policy, you ideally avoid recession altogether. And that way, you don't have to worry about 10% unemployment, 25% underemployment. You get to worry about capacity constraints instead. See Australia.
Now of course, when you run deficits during a boom, now thats something completely else. That is irresponsible. Of course, the deficit during the boom was obama's fau... oh wait.
Fiscal conservatism, responsibility, and no more free handouts - that's the true republican party. If someone runs on that, they will win 100%. They don't even have to be well qualified politically. It's about returning this country from a hyperliberal track to its roots.
I believe that people need to value hard work and smart choices. I don't like affirmative action, bailouts, and welfare. I don't like free healthcare. I don't like handouts. I don't think any hard working American does. People don't like to work hard and see other people slack off and get the same benefits. It's not what America is about and it's not what we stand for as a country. Welfare has its place, but it's gone overboard and gotten out of hand, and no long does the gov't serve to protect, but it serves to provide.
TLDR: Gov't is too big spends too much.
Bullshit. Any republican that campaigns on abolishing medicare/social security wouldn't even get through the primaries, let alone be able to sell it to the populace at large. Can't have welfare and free healthcare, after all.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
Ugh, that was painful to watch. I was going to go to that for a cheap trip to DC to see the monuments too, then I found out it was a 16 hour bus ride for a few hours of standing around.
"You're not allowed to pray at the Lincoln monument anymore."
"When did that happen?"
"They just told us about it the other day... on the news."
Where the fuck do people come up with this shit? As someone who has FOX News playing all day at his house (not by choice, I change it when possible), I can actually say that I have never heard that on FOX.
"Barrack Obama is a racist. You have to read his books, it tells you all about it in them." (Like that dude reads books.)
I was waiting for him to say "You know his mom is white, right?"
This nonsense about not allowing Mosques (although I don't particularly like the religion, because it opposes my own.. I don't hate them by any means) is.. well.. nonsense. People say "We have freedom of speech, and freedom of religion!" Until an opposing view point is brought up, then all that goes out the window. Where the fuck do these people get off?
"Immigrants are coming for a free ride!"
Really? Is that why they work third shift jobs at fucking gas stations. Like 99% of the immigrants I know love that they're out of their original country and have more opportunity to support/progress their family financially than they did back home (immigrants make up the majority of our customers), and almost all of them speak English to a reasonable level.
The one thing I'll give the slightest credence to is the idea of him being Christian. He sounds more like a monotheist from what I've heard from him, but there are a lot of people that call themselves Christian that are monotheists, so he's not all that different from a lot of people if that is the case.
To be fair, though, the rally did have Muslim leaders at the assembly. It had Jewish leaders and Christian leaders too. It was actually very much a support of monotheism. You can gather this if you saw Glen Beck's comments on the rally shortly after, or saw some of the speeches made. Also, in fairness, they seem to have gone to the most redneck looking people in the crowd to get interviews from... but the people I know that are Tea Party supporters and aren't rednecks, would likely have answered in the same way. The only problem is that this level of stupidity isn't exclusive to Tea Partiers, or Republicans, or any one group... there are just a lot of very unintelligent people in the world.
I personally try to stay out of political arguments, because I don't bother to keep myself informed well-enough, but some of these people are so out there it's completely obvious that they're wrong, even to uninformed people such as myself.
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
Spending was out of control under the Reagan administration. That's well-known. The problem is that the Repubs are full of shit when they claim to run of fiscal conservativeness. It's a flat-out lie, and people keep buying it.
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
Anything else?
I just wanted to point out how retarded this part is. You can't compare Norway with the United States like that for about a thousand different reasons.
On September 27 2010 04:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:23 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 04:02 Ramiel wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
The financial crisis in America was not the work of liberal economic policies, that may have caused it to get worse, but it certainly was not the root cause of the problem. Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
China is beginning to boom thanks to having more liberal market polices, while the communist market (which is just radical socialism) did nothing. the same can be said of Russia.
also show me in writing where the world hates the republican party. A fact is something that supposedly can be backed through empirical evidence, and i have yet to see any.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
L O L
Obviously if you compare a country like Finland with its 4 million people and America and its 270 millions, well, America is richer. How fucking surprising.
I don't support what has been done in Russia and China. If you talk to Russian people, though, they would tell you that life in Russia is worse now than 30 years ago, during a hatred dictature. So really, not a great success.
And I am not defensive. you just don't realize how absurdly agressive you are.
You have nothing but lol to answer? That's the answer of a great mind, and a highly educated person, really. The point is you make assumptions based on nothing other people, you realize that you couldn't have gone more wrong and you expect to get out with it just with your uber-agressive standpoint.
Well it doesn't work.
lol is simply my answer to something that has no bearing on this topic of conversation, i don't want to derail the thread. All i saw in the last paragraph was pompous intellectual posturing. Clearly you needed to show that you are far superior to me. I don't need to answer any of that.
Finland (which has a population of about 5mil not 4), great- Kentucky has about the same number of people (population 4.3 mil or something), still has a higher gdp. Whats the point? also americas population is not 270million. it's just a bit over 300mil.
And you also don't support what has been done in Russia or in China? why? millions of people are beginning to make more money, and are starting to have a better quality of life. I don't understand what is so bad about this?
As for the Russians, once again can i see the evidence that the majority of the populace thought life was better 30 years ago?
if you can bring some data into your 'facts' i would rally appreciate it. I may stand corrected, but for now- I'm just feeling really confused. All of your population estimates are way off the mark, and i am still wondering why so many of these 'facts' you use, don't have any evidence to support your claim.
Also how am i being aggressive? none of the other posts that i had pointed out to you don't seem the least bit obtuse and overbearing? When i see things like, it annoys me. So i am sharing my opinion back. How is that aggressive?
lol should have been my answer to your statement saying that I was uneducated when you clearly don't know fuck about what you're talking about (socialism / communism etc...) I don't try to show that I know more than other, because I don't have a clue about if it's true or not, except when someone start a post saying I am an ignorant. Unnacceptable, sorry.
Here GDP per capita. You are behind the most socialist country of Europ. And your wealth is immensely less well distributed than any of the countries we talked about. Very good to have money, but if it's billioniares and companies who make your statistics, it's a bit useless.
I don't support Soviet dictatorship, that's what I meant. Life of Russian citizen is much worst now than before. Life hope is still decreasing. People don't get job etc...
Sorry for not knowing exactly how many people there are in the US. I'm not sure you could tell me without checking how many people there are in France at +/- 15 %. So don't try this one.
You are agressive by starting a post with a whole paragraph dismissing someone you have no clue about.
Anything else?
I just wanted to point out how retarded this part is. You can't compare Norway with the United States like that for about a thousand different reasons.
I'm not arguing the validity of the statement, but if there are a thousand reasons, you should be able to name at least one or two. It really bothers me when people make statements like this with no backing.
There are just so many other factors to consider when you're comparing two countries of vastly different size, density, history, ethnicity, etc... you can't boil it down to a simple "Country X has more socialism and a stronger economy" and then go on to make conclusions about how the two have affected each other.
He follows that up with a sentence that implies that our statistics are worthless because they're made by "billionaires and companies," which reminds me of all the anti-vax loons that automatically discard any research funded by "big pharma."
I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
On September 28 2010 01:01 vetinari wrote: I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
I don't believe liberals want a 1:1 ratio to income equality. They want a fairer distribution as even liberals believe those who deserve it should make more money, not the obscene amounts seen currently.
So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
On September 28 2010 03:47 Fraidnot wrote: When you can only vote for either a douche bag or a turd that's when you should join the majority of Americans and stay home on election day.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Thats the reason said people get elected. Not every politician is bad, just most.
On September 28 2010 01:01 vetinari wrote: I don't think he meant that companies and billionaires invent the statistics. I think he means that the high per capita wealth in the US is because you have a lot of poor people and a bunch of billionaires.
Country A has 10 people with a $1 income. (at PPP) Country B has 9 people with a 10c income and one person with a $10 income. (at PPP) Country A therefore has a GDP of $10 and a GDP/capita of $1. Country B has a GDP of $10.9 and a GDP/capita of $10.9.
Liberals view country A as preferable and believe that republican policies will lead to B.
By my math it's a $1.09 GDP/capita of Country B. (.1x9+10)/10 = 10.9/10 = 1.09/Capita
I could be wrong, though, I was never good at making formulas.
On September 28 2010 03:33 kzn wrote: So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity. This is so ignorant it just has to be either stupidity or provocation. Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on. He should be allowed to not pay taxes so his money doesn't have to go to the sick and needy (they should have been more lucky, it's their fault). Obviously government can be incredibly incompetent and a lot of money will be wasted, but this is the same for private companies, and government isn't going away anyway, so it's just a lot better if you fight instead for competent and non-corrupt government, instead of being diverted by "omg, unworthy people using my moneyz".
Look at the policies of the Obama administration. Look at the debt. Look at the continued job losses.
You cannot simply say "Obama is trying so hard but republicans aren't letting them do anything!"
Obama did try. He failed. His policies have no academic merit and are completely political moves, designed to make him look better by throwing money at the problem. Such is the hyperliberal way. People just don't seem to grasp that you can't spend money forever with no consequence.
Er, no. Don't act like he did not inherit a huge disaster that was not something anyone was sure could be fixed.
The so called fiscal responsibility policy (not that your party EVER follows them) has led to huge federal deficit, shrinking middle class/concentration of wealth in a small group, and stagnation every time since Reagan, it is pretty audacious to run on that over and over. Still peddling the same bullshit about less taxes for rich = better economy no matter how many times it fails. Almost all economists support a rising tax with income (progressive tax) system, yet you make such obvious lies like his ideas "have no academic merit" (k, genius). Not sure how someone can be so oblivious; the failure of your ideology did not just happen long ago it is directly what led to this recent economic disaster.
Man, how unrealistically insane. You guys should realize it's not just your life you ruin by your obstinacy, you know.
Iono why anyone would defend tax cuts for the wealthy when you can't find an economist that will say that keeping the tax cuts for those wealthy would create jobs, along with the top bracket even after the taxes are raised will still, someone check me on this, have lower income taxes then in the past 30 years. Also this would still be the lowest income tax ever during a war period.
Just to put things into prospective the wealth distribution in this country has not been so lob sided to the wealthy sense the 1920's before the great depression.
It is the middle class who make enough money to buy the things they very well make that drive the economy. I do not see republicans actually playing to that base on a fiscal level. They seem to still rely on using social alignment to hold onto voters who aren't exactly well off.
Personally i blame union busting, after WWII and the decline of unions the fall of people getting pay for what they work also occurred. It used to be if you had an increase of productivity the profits would be passed along the whole company, now you readily see just the top of the companies absorbing that profit and passing none on to the workers to helped.
I don't think republicans need to change their social alignment, they will always have that base but their economical standpoint needs to be atleast reworded, atleast if they ever want to appeal to those who aren't completely well off.
Personally i never liked the idea of party politics esp this left vs right. I would fully support a rework of the system to discourage the idea of party alignment.
Esp when issues of the wallet are not always the same as issues socially.
Also like the green party the tea party will likely just undercut the power of the republican party during the elections.
On September 28 2010 03:33 kzn wrote: So basically, liberals are arrogant enough to think they know better than everyone else about what is a fair distribution of income and what isn't.
Income redistribution is both massively hypocritical, coming from liberals, and completely indefensible given a realistic understanding of how economies work.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society.
On September 27 2010 08:05 thedeadhaji wrote: If someone asks me, "what has this administration accomplished in the last 2 years?", I can only really respond with ... 'nothing?'
It would be miraculous if everything was fixed in 2 years given the situation when he took office.
I think what thedeadhaji was saying was that it would be nice if he had fixed ANYTHING. Fixing everything is way too much but fixing something would be nice.
Secondly, he has the most full blown partisan opposition imaginable. Republicans are currently filibustering his every proposal, despite his centrist positions. Yet Obama is the one to take the political blame for things not being accomplished.
Why could Bill Clinton get 10 times more accomplished with a Republican-controlled congress than Obama could while he held a filibuster proof majority?
The GOP has taken the blame everything on Obama position, while opposing almost all Obama legislation. This is why nothing has happened.
Bad economy? Obama Bad health care? Obama No jobs? Obama Oil spill? Obama Herpes? Obama
Are you suggesting that wasn't the case for President Bush? Or any president during the last century. That is part of the job. People will make you take the blame for bad things that are happening (like the BP oil spill...its not like Obama caused it but it hurt him) and give you credit for things that went well (big economic boom driven by internet business proliferation during the Clinton years).
Certainly nothing new here.
And I don't think anyone who paid any attention at all in the '90s would say that Republicans were nicer to Clinton than they are to Obama. Clinton's presidency was failing (it appeared in many ways like Obama's right now), and they lost control of congess in the midterms (a possibility in 2010 as well) and Clinton responded by moving significantly to the middle and passing a lot of moderate/conservative bills.
Whether Obama will do that or not will, I think, decide whether or not he will be a 2 term President. Because he certainly isn't on the "2-term" path right now.
Bush definitely got that and so did Clinton before him, but no one got it even close to Obama. Even with Bush, that was more the public than other politicians (even though that surely happened as well). With Obama, it's not just the public that blames him, but virtually all of the Red politicians as well.
Overall, with his term so far, I'm not happy but I am not disappointed. It's more of like, 'eh, he's ok' which I feel is probably better than what I would have gotten out of a republican administration (for the record, I'm probably best described as a left leaning moderate or something along those lines, so I did entertain the though of voting for McCain)
I did not care for Obama's handling of bailouts (how hard would it have been to say no bonuses or whatever?) and the stimulous, but that was coming no matter who was there. Republicans can bitch all they want about small govt., but both sides would have been forced to bail out those companies.
I am not crazy about how and when healthcare was implemented, but it's probably best for the country. I just don't think it was smart to do it in the middle of a recession.
His biggest asset by far is that he viewed favorably by the rest of the world, who we ultimately rely on for trade, oil, etc.
but yeah, anywho, enough about that. I don't get why everyone is so sure that the GOP is gonna spank people at the polls. There is always a backlash against the group in power, esp in times of economic crisis (even if people are too stupid to recognize that the crisis predated his tenure but I digress). But I really don't see it nearly as hard as people think.
What is the other side of the coin?? A GOP that has gone even further from it's true conservative roots and gotten even crazier?? If the party actually stuck to its roots, it's a totally different story. Hell, a person who just went on a true fiscal conservative platform would probably dominate at the polls... but the party is shifting towards super whacky religious neo-cons or even worse, those goddamn Tea Partiers.
It started with Palin. McCain himself wasn't a bad pick. But the fuck I I'd ever use a vote to put someone so fucking dumb and naive into a position of power, even if she'd really only have something truly meaningful if McCain died in office (a real posibility) I don't care how elitist it sounds, but someone from a backwater, culturally isolated area should not be making decision for the country as a whole, ever.
Everything snowballed after that. The Tea Party is the worst goddamn thing to happen to politics in this country in years. It does absolutely no good to be pissed as hell, yell at everyone and not know why.
For the lazy, it's NJ Gov. Christie engaging some dipshit who shits up a rally by yelling. “Hey, listen. You know what. You want to yell, yell at me,” Christie said, shutting down Buck as Christie’s bodyguards calmly but quickly approached the two men. “It’s people who raise their voices and yell and scream like you who are dividing this country. We’re here to bring this country together.”
Have you ever talked to a Tea Party member?? There is no cohesion, no plan, no nothing. No one has any clue what they are mad at. But politics is always about playing to the lowest common denominator, and that shit is working. It is fucking terrifying that that idiot in Delaware even surprised in primaries. The best part is that the dolts who elected her were probably foaming at the mouth about Obama's inexperience a little over two years ago...
That is your average Tea Partier: Mad, but no clue what they're mad at. Anyone remotely intelligent left that group a while ago. Right wingers that aren't crazy (there are some) hate them. Dems and moderates hate them. They're the idiots who yell and raise hell at meetings but never, ever offer a solution.
I hate these opinion politics threads. Everyone makes sweeping generalities and when somebody says something that disagrees with their sweeping generalities they go ape shit and the thread invariably develops into "your full of shit," "no, you are."
Anyone remotely intelligent left that group a while ago.
Not a huge fan of Ann Coulter, but this certainly evokes her writing that eliminating "you're stupid!" would eliminate a good half of liberal arguments.
Yes, there are idiots in every political group.
No, this does not absolve you from having to back up your claims.
Right wingers that aren't crazy
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
(there are some) hate them.
No, while a good amount of people (me included) think that some elements of the Tea Party platform are unrealistic (for example, hardline w/ regards to immigration policy and entitlement elimination), I'm pretty sure we don't wish to burn their homes and kill their families.
In fact, you can engage in substantive policy disputes with people without calling them idiots, racists, or hating them personally. What a novel idea!
Dems and moderates hate them.
While I have no doubt about the validity of the Dems part of this statement, Rasmussen the pollster reports that the percentage of Americans favoring healthcare repeal vs those opposing is at a 57-35 spread.
Of course its impossible to quantitatively estimate how many people hate the Tea Party. But a good percentage of Americans agree with one of the central points of their platform.
They're the idiots who yell and raise hell at meetings but never, ever offer a solution.
This is the problem with reading Kos, Mediamatters, or HuffPo exclusively for political information (or equivalently, FreeRepublic on the right). You begin to think making sweeping generalizations constitutes good and witty argument.
There are a lot of minds on the right, both in the libertarian and traditional conservative wings, that have provided pretty detailed plans for solutions (Cato/Heritage are pretty good think tanks for this sort of stuff). But on a more general level--do you seriously expect every voter to have a detailed policy plan on every issue they care about? Invasive wealth redistribution is a perfectly valid issue to cast your vote on, just like the government giving you free stuff and higher pay via fiat.
I hate these opinion politics threads. Everyone makes sweeping generalities and when somebody says something that disagrees with their sweeping generalities they go ape shit and the thread invariably develops into "your full of shit," "no, you are."
I will happily acknowledge that this is the smartest poster in this thread, and that you have inspired me to do something productive with my afternoon.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
No shit, but you don't see liberals holding a rally to celebrate them. WOOO! YEAH! RALLY TO RESTORE COMMUNISM MAN! No, lol. That's just retarded.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
So, now that a lot has changed we can ask: 1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment? 2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now? 3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP. 1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly? 2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
I think GOP is polling so well now because of the still ongoing economic crisis. Had unemployment not been so high the dems would be doing fine. Also, many ppl seem to be shifting towards a tea party - less govt spending - attitude and this movement has been amplified because people are seeing the national debt, the spending and their own wallets all in trouble.
In regards to the second set of questions I think the tea party will have a significant impact on the GOP. Even though they've been portrayed really bad in the media as racists and what not, their message of less govt spending and getting our fiscal policy under control is a sound one. And traditionally republicans have been for less govt in general, which is similar to tea party thought but their handling of fiscal issues has always been almost the same as the democrats. Let's hope that the tea party's msg becomes reality.
I think the results in November are obvious and that the republicans will pick up many seats. However, if they were to pick up the presidency in 2012 is largely dependent on the state of the economy at the time. Obama got a lot of votes in 08 from independents and normal middle class folk during a time of crisis and after the GOP controlled washington for a long time, but if in 2012 the unemployment numbers are unchanged I have no doubt that the republicans will take the presidency... I just hope the nominee is not Palin. If unemployment goes down, he will crush his opponent no matter who it is.
On September 27 2010 03:25 Kimaker wrote: The situation is far too complex to be able to sum up with "uneducated American's joined the Tea Party Movement", that is both unfair, and highly inaccurate.
This video sickens me. I used to be a Republican because I couldn't stand most Democrats(still cant) but this just proves to me that I wont vote for either side in the next elections.
These nasty, fat, lazy, typical American sloths are what gives us our bad name.
I bet i could make a video That shows the idiots of the left wing too. It would probably be much easier too. I would only have to walk around college to find them.
I could make a video that shows idiots of the right wing just by recording fox news. See left wing college crazy nuts are rather harmless. I can't say the same for a major media outlet.
Also, it's the lazy, fat, typical Americal sloth (which by your defensive claim are only right wing) that the rest of the world hates. Now to be honest I couldn't care less about what the rest of the world thinks but man we have gone so far off the deep end I don't know what to think anymore.
Fun aside I am neither Democrat nor Republican and I wish both parties would crash and burn. This country was never meant to be run on a simple by-partisan basis and our government doesn't really support that. What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
I probably shouldn't even participate in these discussions. I'm not too knowledgeable about the United States and I'm not qualified to really argue for the benefits for one system over the other. That's where experts are for, anyway, and I imagine it's easy enough to find opinions supporting what both of us said. You're arguing for something that has no chance of ever happening and would fundamentally change society, though. I guess that in those cases it's really up to you to provide credible sources and have well-written posts explaining what those other people are missing. After all, if your way was really better than I'd gladly agree and join that view, but if you start out with "those damn liberals, thinking they're so smart, well, they're not, and they're obviously wrong, I'm not even going to explain it, though I could" and then not provide any evidence then I don't think you'll be taken seriously.
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
Yes yes, quite right. Only someone as intelligent and blessed as you could back up what you've said so no reason to do it. The others? Pah, they're just spouting a bunch of hogwash and obviously have nothing to back their claims up with.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were also the Founding Fathers of the country's two-party system.
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: What I wouldn't give to have a viable candidate that has a mix of both parties like the founding fathers probably wanted in the first place.
The Founding Fathers of the United States were also the Founding Fathers of the country's two-party system.
The "two" parties from back then where much more muddled than they are now. Far more moderate types and the issues back then were simpler. States rights? Union Rights? and so on. The system left room for people that werent completely for one side or the other.
This quickly changed of course as the increasing friction between the North and South due to a SHITTON of issues caused people to divide sharply. That divide has continued to this day with the inclusion of a name switch.
I just finished reading this whole thing, and I noticed a gigantic change in the attitude of posts in the leap from 2008 to 2010.
It's as if the thread itself mirrors the development of rage and angst in the American political climate.
Also, what's up with everybody's obsession about Palin? I thought she wasn't planning on running for any sort of office after her term as governor expired. All she's done recently is promote tea party candidates and such, so I don't see why people keep bringing her up when considering the 2012 election.
EDIT:
On September 28 2010 07:49 Jayme wrote: This quickly changed of course as the increasing friction between the North and South due to a SHITTON of issues caused people to divide sharply. That divide has continued to this day with the inclusion of a name switch.
I don't think the change in party attitude was as much of a switch as people put it out to be.
Republicans have always been pro-industry, but it wasn't until later in the 20th century that they started trying to defend "states' rights".
On September 28 2010 04:51 Mothxal wrote: Ugh, income distribution is literally one of the greatest achievements of the western world and is one of the main factors for it having mostly peace and prosperity.
Opinion followed by unsupported claim.
Those evil liberals, fighting for social security and single-payer healthcare - things that have an enormously positive effect on a country's economy by the way and also improve well-being, reduce misery - thinking that they know better than kzn on what to spend money on.
Bahahaha.
You are completely wrong, about both.
Please look up the GINI coefficient's co-relationship with the total economic strength of a society
Nothing of the sort mentioned on Wikipedia's page on the GINI Coefficient, so I'm gonna need a source or some kind of link before I can refute this.
Steps to being as awesome as kzn: 1) Post unsupported opinion that flames probably the majority of the site. 2) Get people who disagree with your opinion to post their opinions. 3) Laugh and be an ass towards people who post their opinions 4) Call them out for not supporting their opinions. 5) Be more assy.
The important distinction is that if asked, I can actually back up everything I've said.
I probably shouldn't even participate in these discussions. I'm not too knowledgeable about the United States and I'm not qualified to really argue for the benefits for one system over the other. That's where experts are for, anyway, and I imagine it's easy enough to find opinions supporting what both of us said. You're arguing for something that has no chance of ever happening and would fundamentally change society, though. I guess that in those cases it's really up to you to provide credible sources and have well-written posts explaining what those other people are missing. After all, if your way was really better than I'd gladly agree and join that view, but if you start out with "those damn liberals, thinking they're so smart, well, they're not, and they're obviously wrong, I'm not even going to explain it, though I could" and then not provide any evidence then I don't think you'll be taken seriously.
I don't spend the effort to write a mini-thesis supporting my claims in my first post because 90% of the time people wouldn't even read it. However, given that you didn't flip your shit like most people do, here goes:
With regards to your claim that income redistribution is one of the main reasons for our peace and prosperity, I'd have to know more about why you think this is the case to really argue it. Peace is a bit weird, because its probably true that without redistributive policies the poor people would be angrier at the rich people (wrongly, but whatever) and thus "less" peace would be a presumable result.
As far as prosperity, however, I don't think its even possible. Income taxes, even flat rate ones, distort the price of labor and thus result in, essentially, less productivity than would exist without distortions (although the only tax that doesn't have distortions is massively regressive, so is a political impossibility).
Moreover, this kind of argument for redistribution rests on essentially utilitarian ethics, and I think this is not something most liberals actually believe in except when it suits them. If you truly believe that we should be doing things purely because the consequences are good, you must also believe that, for instance, if we could cure AIDS by killing 100 innocent people we should do so (I can craft a theoretically infinite number of such examples that I suspect liberals would not want to do). If consequences are not the only basis upon which we judge a policy, then liberals must justify the "fairness" of redistributing income, which is something that I do not believe can be done. The best effort I've encountered came from Rawls, and even his was self-destructive when the thought experiment is executed properly*.
Now, with regards to Social Security (single payer healthcare comes after this). I would honestly have little issue with Social Security if it was what it claims to be - namely, a government savings program which people cannot opt out of. I suppose there is a place for this if people are too stupid to realize they need to save on their own (although personally I'd just say fuck 'em), but thats not what Social Security is (or was). FDR marketed it that way to people, but it started paying out instantly, to people who had never paid in, and FDR also used the funds paid into SS as essentially more government money, with the end result being that SS is essentially insolvent, and one must be quite optimistic to expect even half of what is promised to them if you're in my age group. In essence, SS is a ponzi scheme. A well executed one, certainly, but a ponzi scheme nonetheless.
Single payer healthcare is more complicated. As you no doubt suspect, I do not support Universal Healthcare policies of any kind. But I grant that this is mostly opinion - I can't put forth a solid argument as to why universal healthcare is wrong (and nor can anyone else do the opposite, really). So lets grant that the country is agreed that everyone should have access to healthcare up to a certain level of care**. This does not, however, instantly justify single-payer healthcare systems, because they are flat out worse than other alternatives. If you really wanted to get everyone access to healthcare, you'd enact some kind of voucher system that gave people healthcare vouchers to purchase insurance with as they saw fit, funded by tax receipts. The end result in terms of coverage is identical, and the system will not slowly implode as it has in the UK, and as it is doing in Canada.
*This is the root of my claim that liberals are hypocritical and inconsistent. Rawls' defense of redistribution is inconsistent, and thus completely flawed, and liberals are hypocritical in that they take a utilitarian ethical position only when it suits them, and abandon it whenever it would cede the moral high ground to their opposition.
**I should hope people would agree that its rather unfair to say that everyone must purchase healthcare of the same quality regardless of their willingness to pay for higher quality care.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
Reagan is not to blame for most of the spending that occurred during his Presidency - Congress is. For the most part, Congress is to blame for spending of any kind before the President is. Granted, Reagan could have vetoed budgets, but nobody has yet had the cojones to get into that kind of war with Congress. Clinton got close, but even that didn't really go on very long (and it was a reverse of what I'm talking about).
National debt is not a good measure of spending because it brings in an entirely separate category of tax rates (and receipts)*.
* Despite Reagan dropping the top rate of income tax from like 80% to 40% (or something?), tax receipts in absolute terms actually went up, and didn't change much at all as a % of GDP.
Incredibly misleading source - whilst it is tempting to just look at the line go down, go "oooooo", and point fingers - its always worthwhile to notice it says projected deficits as of 2008
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
Republican certainly have not outspent the democrats, but they have increased the national debt--but that was primarily because they cut taxes and therefore government revenue. That is the largest reason the deficit rose under Bush.
Also, it is my understanding that domestic spending did shrink under Reagan. Overall spending did not shrink because of much larger military spending. The debt also grew but mostly due to tax cuts. And no matter what people say about his military spending the fact remains that before Reagan there was the USSR and cold war. After Reagan there was Russia and no cold war. Younger people like me and most of you don't even know what it was like to live in the cold war era and face the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We have it pretty nice now. And though you can't say that Reagan did it single handedly, you can't ignore him either.
Whatever, Reagan did, the people certainly liked it: + Show Spoiler +
"Ronald Reagan sought--and won--more spending cuts than any other modern president. He is the only president in the last forty years to cut inflation-adjusted nondefense outlays, which fell by 9.7 percent during his first term"
Bush actually did a TON to hurt Republicans reputation as being fiscally conservative. By the end, even people like me disliked him for the damage he did to conservative fiscal policy.
Actually in honesty, I think the GOP NEEDED a hard kick in the pants after the Bush years. They essentially became Democrats and yet still expected to keep their reputation as fiscal conservatives. Unfortunately, we had to elect democrat majority and president to deliver that kick, but if it works and the GOP actually shapes up, it could be completely worth it.
If the Republicans in Washington don't wanna constrain government spending then who will?
1. Did the GOP abandon social issues and aggressive foreign policy? Was there a major realignment?
GOP is centered (almost exclusively) right now, on debunking the "democratic agenda" and spreading ignorance/hate about Obama, so that in the future, the tide may change for their favor.
2. What did the GOP do and why are they polling so well now?
Typical collectivism combined with herd mentality conservative arguments - "Obama the black terrorist." "Obama the baby killer." "Obama the socialist/facist." sort of regime speak.
3. What will be the future of the GOP? Is this just a transient bounce-back against a true beginning of a liberal/progressive era?
GOP will be strong, and barring a big win in the current administration, will once again dominate the political sphere in the next presidential election; and then when they screw the pooch, the tide may change again.
Further, please also discuss the Tea Party and its effect on the GOP.
1. Is the Tea Party here to stay or will it disappear very quickly?
Disappear, like any other niche political fad, brought upon by a collective mentality that situates at the right time.
2. Will it be a dominate force in the GOP?
No, but the ideals (ultra conservatism mixed with a strict emphasis on rogue "trickle down" social and economical issues; the pro-business slant, and anti-government one-traditionalism), will remain situated in the republican agenda for years to come; until something more juicy and ripe for the taking comes along.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
What a silly thing to say. I might as well say that regardless of "reality" and "facts", you're wrong!
On September 28 2010 09:00 Savio wrote: And no matter what people say about his military spending the fact remains that before Reagan there was the USSR and cold war. After Reagan there was Russia and no cold war. Younger people like me and most of you don't even know what it was like to live in the cold war era and face the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We have it pretty nice now. And though you can't say that Reagan did it single handedly, you can't ignore him either.
At the very least, you should check out the USSR's budget numbers before you link its collapse in late 1991 with Reagan's fiscal irresponsibility.
Then you should turn your attention to the USSR's myriad of domestic issues.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
How "recent" is recent?
Because for the last 30 years Republicans have WAYY outspent Democrats. In fact, the national debt didn't start to skyrocket until the days of Reagan and Bush Sr. I think after 3 decades you're going to have to live with the fact that Republicans will spend at least as much as Democrats if not a hell of a lot more...especially because the Republican party heralds Reagan as their champion.
I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
What a silly thing to say. I might as well say that regardless of "reality" and "facts", you're wrong!
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
even if that is true the huge difference is that democrats spend money on the country, on the people, on infrastructure while republicans spend it on tax cuts for the richest few and on wars.
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
[...] Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
i just got an update on the economic might of america and what it means (nothing).
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
On September 28 2010 08:01 HunterX11 wrote: Saying that you support the Republican Party because you're a fiscal conservative is kind of like saying that you support the Republican Party because you're gay. It's certainly possible to be a gay Republican, but saying that you're a Republican specifically because they are the party that champions gay rights the most and that the Democrats are inferior on the subject of gay rights, well...that would be a little strange? And yet why is it considered normal for a person to say they support the party of more spending and more government subsidies because they are for "small government?" It is like something out of 1984, where up is down and black is white.
Regardless of the recent history of either party, it is massively more likely that Republicans will be outspent by Democrats.
even if that is true the huge difference is that democrats spend money on the country, on the people, on infrastructure while republicans spend it on tax cuts for the richest few and on wars.
On September 27 2010 03:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On September 27 2010 03:32 Ramiel wrote: biff, if you don't live in the us your perceptions of our politics are very misguided. Sorry, but i feel that your opinion is extremely obtuse, it is clear to me that you don't really have an educated view point. You sound more like a disgruntled European passing judgment.
The economic disaster has nothing to do with capitalism, it had everything to do with fools, and the idea of 'the great society.'
Secondly having a free market and liberal market is what will drive the world economy, socialism and structured markets are like a gaping wound, slowly bleeding markets dry.
Lastly, you description of republicans is completely off, and in the far right field (yes pun intended) Please stop spouting nonsensical definitions about political parties based on satire, or other news media outlets.
At least I had a good laugh. Your first paragrapher is gold. I'll put it in every post where I disagree with someone.
The economic disaster has to do with the destruction of a number of rules in the financial area in your country and in the world since the beginning of ultraliberal era (Tatcher-Reagan). The crisis is a direct consequence of the ultraliberal policies you guys are fighting for.
Your free market thing is very nice, but there are a number of very socialist countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany in a certain extent... which do much better both on economical and social level than for example, UK. So your anti-socialist doxa is maybe old-fashionned.
Third I haven't given any definition of the rpublican, except by saying they were hated around the world, which is a goddamn fact, and that the far right republicans à-la Tea Party are nuts.
I am uneducated? What do you want to talk about? Ontological problem in XVIIth century rationnalist philosophy? The answer of German composers to atonality in the beginning of the XXth century? Freud's point of view on Dostoievsky? Or maybe about the crime of the CIA during operation Condor in South America in the 60's, I'm sure you are very aware of that.
People who start their answers by "you are obviously uneducated" make me laugh out loud.
so defensive, and quick to jump hehe.
[...] Secondly, all of the wonderful socialist countries you have named do not hold a candle to American economic might. Our gdp is 14.59 trillion. all of the countries you have named come no where close, even all united- they don't even cast a shadow. So please stop reiterating about the superiority of socialism. Socialism is a great on paper, but in reality it doesn't nothing but retard the growth of society, and economies.
Tax cuts aren't a government expenditure and while it's true that military expenditures under Republican Presidents has been higher in the past 30 years, I'd like to point out that the FOUR biggest wars of the 20th Century were all joined by Democrats: World War I -- Woodrow Wilson (D) World War II -- FDR (D) Korean War -- Harry S. Truman (D) Vietnam War -- Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
Of these, only WWII stands out as being truly unavoidable.
And regarding your video, I'd like to point out that in a developed nation, the standards of living in rural regions always lags behind the standard of living in urban and suburban regions. The fact that many so-called "red states" have large rural areas is something of a confounding variable.
On the matter of socialism, I personally do not wish to see it in this country, but not because I think it's necessarily "inferior," but because I do not wish to see a government as corrupt as our own acquire yet more power over my life. This is why I, on a personal level, advocate small government.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Maybe this is true. And in hindsight, 20 years from now, we will have a better grasp of what's been going on. But I think, considering that our country is still plagued by many troubles both domestically and abroad, that people have a right for concern, especially when our President has been running this country differently than he said he would. Did he learn things he cannot share with us? Maybe. But if the problems continue for too much longer (sticking to the 1.5 to 2 years rule), we both know that Obama will be blamed and that the people will be right to do so.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Maybe this is true. And in hindsight, 20 years from now, we will have a better grasp of what's been going on. But I think, considering that our country is still plagued by many troubles both domestically and abroad, that people have a right for concern, especially when our President has been running this country differently than he said he would. Did he learn things he cannot share with us? Maybe. But if the problems continue for too much longer (sticking to the 1.5 to 2 years rule), we both know that Obama will be blamed and that the people will be right to do so.
it is a democracy... and even though obama is the president and arguably could have put up more of a fight, he does not have unlimited power. a certain amount of people of your country casted their vote for the republicans, and the power of his political opposition does not go away by simply wishing for it, nor should he be able to ignore the wishes of the people who voted for republicans. the latter probably is the biggest reason for why the reforms have been as weak as they are and if you look at how obama treats other nations you will easily see that he always looks for things both sides can agree on instead of imposing his beliefs on them. at least thats the message he got the peace prize for. either that, or he is just as much of a sellout as most of the republican party and some very peculiar "democrats", but has been marketed so well that we totally fell for his great speeches.
I'm not a great supporter of Obama, or Democrats in general. I vote that way, simply because the alternative is worse, but not because I'm happy. I hate that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that we can't have rational discussions/discourse in America, but I'm realist enough to realize that the unwashed masses are the majority reason and they are the majority voice.
That said, the Republicans are playing the long-game. Obama and Democrats in general had earlier on, tried to engage and speak with the Republicans, compromise to get shit done and our country back on-track. Republicans though, see this as an opportunity to look good, by making the others look bad. Why play ball, why try and do anything, when you can simply wait out the clock? To hell with the people who need help now, we'll make our agenda in 2/4/6 years (which largely screws the majority of Americans any chance they can).
Better yet, their compromises are anything but. Give a penny and Republicans will take a pound, and then STILL vote against it. Hell, they've voted against more than a few of their own initiative that garnered Democrat support simply to deny the current administration any semblance of a victory.
It's hard to talk with a group that would like nothing better than to see you kicked out, or even stoned in the courtyard, for little more reason than that they aren't in your shoes.
Democrats in general are a pissant-cowardly bunch unable/unwilling to actually stand up for their beliefs and espouse them loudly. Liberal is a perceived as a dirty word largely due to the Democrat's own failings. That they haven't called the Republicans out on their MANY hypocrisies is my greatest disappointment in politics.
On September 29 2010 03:47 Obsidian wrote: I'm not a great supporter of Obama, or Democrats in general. I vote that way, simply because the alternative is worse, but not because I'm happy. I hate that I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that we can't have rational discussions/discourse in America, but I'm realist enough to realize that the unwashed masses are the majority reason and they are the majority voice.
That said, the Republicans are playing the long-game. Obama and Democrats in general had earlier on, tried to engage and speak with the Republicans, compromise to get shit done and our country back on-track. Republicans though, see this as an opportunity to look good, by making the others look bad. Why play ball, why try and do anything, when you can simply wait out the clock? To hell with the people who need help now, we'll make our agenda in 2/4/6 years (which largely screws the majority of Americans any chance they can).
Better yet, their compromises are anything but. Give a penny and Republicans will take a pound, and then STILL vote against it. Hell, they've voted against more than a few of their own initiative that garnered Democrat support simply to deny the current administration any semblance of a victory.
It's hard to talk with a group that would like nothing better than to see you kicked out, or even stoned in the courtyard, for little more reason than that they aren't in your shoes.
Democrats in general are a pissant-cowardly bunch unable/unwilling to actually stand up for their beliefs and espouse them loudly. Liberal is a perceived as a dirty word largely due to the Democrat's own failings. That they haven't called the Republicans out on their MANY hypocrisies is my greatest disappointment in politics.
This is so true. I.....ugh.....it depresses me just thinking about it.
And for everyone talking about job losses/etc get rid of nafta and see what happens
I'll eat my own fecal matter if you can find even 5 members of Congress -- on either side of the aisle -- who are truly honorable.
And it always surprises me how people on this forum claim that "liberal" is viewed as a dirty word. Where the hell do you people live? Because everywhere I go "conservative" is the word that's taboo. "Conservative" gets equated with ultra-religious fundamentalist lunatic evangelists and utter morons like Glenn Beck who make such retarded arguments that you cannot help but wonder if they are secretly playing for the other team. That's not what defines a conservative anymore than the most extreme animal liberation groups and literal tree-hugging hippies represent being a liberal. But on this board, "conservative" seems to be interpreted as "Glenn Beck wannabe."
To enzym: regarding opposition to Obama and his supposed ability to always find common ground... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry that you believe all of that.
To Sadist: regarding job loss, you know that CLINTON (D) signed NAFTA, right? And quite frankly, I agree with Clinton's decision and find it silly to blame our current economic problems on a treaty signed 20 years ago that helped America reach the height of its power. The short-sightedness of America's leaders in DC and NY today is the matter that concerns me.
On September 29 2010 08:05 Mortality wrote: To enzym: regarding opposition to Obama and his supposed ability to always find common ground... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry that you believe all of that.
you must have misread. i said he was looking for common ground as a basis of action, not that he always finds it. republicans are not exactly a party you can cooperate with. yet even so they still have gotten the votes of many people and represent these people on the united states government and ignoring the power they hold on the behalf of these people would arguably go against the very principle that is democracy. if there is still a misunderstanding or disagreement from your side id like to straighten it out, but youd have to be more specific than you were with the above.
On September 28 2010 10:31 Mortality wrote: I think he's referring to the issue of Obama's multi-trillion dollar deficits.
Of course that's not necessarily a bad thing. The issue is whether we can outgrow (in the long term) the additional debt we have acquired.
Many people are worrying about what the future will bring and I do not think these people should be blamed. It is true that you must spend money in order to make money. You cannot produce without putting in the time and resources needed to produce. And it is true that it takes time for Presidential policy to effect the economic climate. Historical evidence has shown that it takes 1.5-2 years before the current actions of a President effect the economic state of our nation.
We're almost at 2 years. Job loss has slowed, but we are still losing jobs. Consumer confidence continues to dwindle as quality of products continues to decline. The national debt has continued to climb tremendously during a time in which GDP growth was negative. And the same business practices and Wall Street practices that caused the market instability in the first place are still there. Short sightedness in fiscal planning is not okay.
I'm not happy with the economic thinking in DC right now (not just the Presidency, but Congress as well). Personally I am against the notion of "too big to fail," but fine, there are people smarter than me who believe in it. However, if a bank is "too big to fail," then you better damn well assure it can't fail. And we haven't seen any serious stab at reforming American business practices. Indeed, they seem to have gotten worse.
By the way, regarding Reagan... I would like to point out that Reagan regarded the growth of the national debt to be his "greatest disappointment." The major economic pains of this country at the time of Reagan's election were stagflation (high unemployment and double digit inflation) and sinking GDP growth (early in Carter's administration, growth rates peaked as high as 7% but they tanked to nothing by the end). Supply side economics was a fairly new idea at the time and people in this camp grabbed Reagan's ear.
The problem of a growing national debt played a small role in helping Reagan get into office. Due to the double digit inflation rates and the stagnant GDP growth when Reagan entered office, we were able to outgrow some of the damage, but not nearly as much as Reagan had hoped for.
Supply side economics shouldn't be dismissed outright, but just like our understanding of science, our understanding of economics marches on.
It should be pointed out that FDR ran into a similar problem, although in his case I believe he died not knowing the truth. To solve the problem of the Great Depression, FDR turned towards the economic theories of his day, which included a number of silly notions, like the idea that if you pay a man to dig a ditch and then pay him to fill it back up again you have contributed to the economy. In fact what you have done is committed resources into producing literally nothing, thereby hurting the economy. It took thirty years before the last vestiges of damage from the Great Depression wore off.
There are some very interesting comparisons here, and understanding of things not with hindsight but by assuming you don't know what the future holds (aka living in the era).
One thought I'd like to mention about FDR is that paying someone to dig and another to fill it up is net zero gain for the economy. It's the equivalent of paying people unemployment checks (digging ditches and filling them add nothing just like the unemployed add nothing). Doing the same thing as FDR and expecting different results is insanity (the great depression). By UCLA's estimates FDR's policies extended the great depression by 6-8 years.
There's a lot about economics we simply don't understand. Most of the economic theory prior to the 1900's was people making enormous assumptions about human behavior and fitting a theory to the assumption.
People need to realize that while current economic theories may represent the most we know right now, they don't represent an ultimate and unchanging truth. Supply side economics, Keynesian economics, Communism -- all of these ideas may influence generations to come, but in their current incarnations they are nothing more than passing fads that will be outright mocked by our descendants in the same way that we mock the notion of the earth being the center of the universe.
And regarding FDR, I'd argue that paying a man to dig then fill a ditch for no purpose other than to give him a job is actually a net loss due to the time and resources dedicated. You honestly would be better off giving the man a check for doing nothing. However, this laughable idea was considered a valid economic theory in its day. FDR's policies hurt us, but that makes him no less of a hero in my eyes.
Regarding modern times, I think many conservatives fear that Obama is trying to be FDR, but his policies have been a bit different. To be honest, I am not at all sure what exactly Obama is trying to do and I can't help but feel that his administration has not been forthcoming, which is especially disconcerting when you consider that his platform was heavily based on increasing government transparency.
Europeans often scratch their heads at why we think they are crazy for putting so much trust in their government on domestic issues, but I feel very strongly that their governments better represent the collective will of the people. Maybe I am wrong in that regard (it is only my opinion, after all), but I can't help but feel caught between a rightist elite and a leftist elite, neither one representing me.
I agree with most of this post although on the point about transparency, I think the administration is finding that transparency isn't always a good thing. What's that old adage about politics and sausage making? People will never understand why their congress people make certain sacrifices in order to get other things passed.
Yet its an incredibly arrogant assumption by the political class: that the people cannot possibly hope to understand the complexities of politics, and thus a special set of people must be designated to explain to them what it all means. Give some credit to the people: overall they've done a better job managing their budgets than the government (both parties) has its own.
The mindset exemplified by statements from a distinguished senator from Massachusetts like:
We have an electorate that doesn't always pay that much attention to what's going on so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what's happening...
And then, when saying this eventually backfires in elections, this is held up as proof of the central thesis that Americans are too stupid to understand politics, and the disconnect widens, creating a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm afraid I'm being too idealistic if I believe that there's going to be a reversal of this trend. For example, there are plenty of (successful) pundits/talk-show/tv-show hosts who are, to put it bluntly, morons. I don't see that section of the industry going out of business anytime soon.
On September 29 2010 08:05 Mortality wrote: I'll eat my own fecal matter if you can find even 5 members of Congress -- on either side of the aisle -- who are truly honorable.
And it always surprises me how people on this forum claim that "liberal" is viewed as a dirty word. Where the hell do you people live? Because everywhere I go "conservative" is the word that's taboo. "Conservative" gets equated with ultra-religious fundamentalist lunatic evangelists and utter morons like Glenn Beck who make such retarded arguments that you cannot help but wonder if they are secretly playing for the other team. That's not what defines a conservative anymore than the most extreme animal liberation groups and literal tree-hugging hippies represent being a liberal. But on this board, "conservative" seems to be interpreted as "Glenn Beck wannabe."
To enzym: regarding opposition to Obama and his supposed ability to always find common ground... I don't know whether to laugh or to cry that you believe all of that.
To Sadist: regarding job loss, you know that CLINTON (D) signed NAFTA, right? And quite frankly, I agree with Clinton's decision and find it silly to blame our current economic problems on a treaty signed 20 years ago that helped America reach the height of its power. The short-sightedness of America's leaders in DC and NY today is the matter that concerns me.
Yes I do know Clinton signed it and it basically ruined Michigan. We felt the recession coming before ANYONE. The housing market crash gave everyone a taste of what its been like here for 10 years. Basically if you were lucky enough to work at GM, Ford, or Chrysler you were ok until the real recession hit, if you worked at a supplier (like most people) NAFTA basically fucked you. When shit started to get tight the Big 3 passed on the cost to the suppliers like they always do to avoid shit hitting the fan for as long as possible. Suppliers had to do things faster, cheaper etc. Lots either went bankrupt, paid their workers consistently lower wages, or went to mexico.
Many people since the recession have lost their job to mexico or canada due to nafta. Yes jobs have come back a bit at the supplier level, but the wages are INCREDIBLY low compared to what they used to be. Working on the line that would pay like 15-20$ at a supplier before now pays close to 10. I dont know how people afford the homes that they live in here unless they bunch up and live together.
You had guys sweeping the floor at GM making $30 while the suppliers get fucked.
People cant support a family on $10 an hour. You know part of the reason the big 3 started to fail is the majority of their customers worked at their damn factories or at a supplier. When those people dont have jobs anymore who the hell is going to buy your cars?
Nothing changed for the Republican party. Every single one of their main talking points still stands, its just that Glenn Beck has spawned and people clamor to Fox News to be frightened. Remember the whole ACORN scandal? Turns out the videos were edited and purely hoax. Fox has made the biggest deal out of this apparent scandal for months, and month of the pundits have the audacity to admit they were wrong? Dicks. Nothing more.
The failure of the democrats is also to be blamed on Democrats, however. Democrats have proven to be bigger douches who lack spine than ever. The bailouts were all undeserved, they constantly showed their soft sides for corporation, and when there was a bill that could be passed ASAP (see Healthcare), Obama just sat there trying to be bipartisan until it was too late, and the democrats no longer had a super majority.
It truly is unfortunate that a third party that doesn't favor corporation has not come out of all this. Instead, you get the Tea Party. Also known as the second Republican party. Both parties share the exact same ideals, all of which favors the wealthy, economically, and the irrational old, morally.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/6/66/300px-Star_Wars_Logo.svg.png){kind=logo}
![[image loading]](http://www.billdolson.com/reentryseries/021126-O-9999G-015s.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://timpanogos.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/cartoon-fiscal-conservative-greenberg21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/obama-deficit21.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2008/us-deficit-forecast-dec08.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://tutorsquill.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/stimulus-vs-unemployment-september-dots.png)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/10q07iv.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1980-electoral-map.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table1_350.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.aei.org/imgLib/20040609_Table3.gif)
